Court Opinion

ID: 9832040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:34:07.156378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:41.389426
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We did not intend in the original opinion to decide the merits of the order directing, issuance of attachment for appellant, as ap-pellee appears to construe that opinion. The fact was mentioned only as an incident of the summary proceeding, by which appellant, without being given any sort of notice or hearing, was at least temporarily deprived of his liberty and property.
Nor did we- find as a fact that the receiver had actually sold appellant’s horses and mules in accordance with the authority given him in response to his application. We simply suggested that, if he continued to be as diligent after as he was before obtaining the order, he must have sold the live stock by the time the appeal was determined.
In his motion for rehearing appellee goes beyond the record presented in the transcript, and denies that such sale had been made. If we take cognizance of matters occurring subsequent to the taking of the ap peal, then it appears that the receiver as a matter of fact sold the live stock to appellee on September 29th for the sum of $935, and his motion for confirmation of the sale is pending. The probable sale was mentioned in tile original opinion, .not as having a controlling or even material effect upon the decision, but as another incident to the unreasonably harsh remedy resorted to by appellee.
In his motion for rehearing appellee sets out a series of additional facts, by reason of which it is argued that the trial court was justified in appointing the receiver with the powers given Kim in this case. But none of these additional facts were set out in the •ápplication for the appointment of the receiver ; they are without support in the record ; and can have no effect in the determination of the appeal.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing is overruled.