Court Opinion

ID: 9829326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:12:43.196881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:59.974470
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee Southerland seems not to understand our statement that the purchaser of the warehouse receipt, since such a receipt was a negotiable one, had the 'right to fill in the blanks and insist. that the filling them in according to the original contract would make the receipt nonnegotiable. Not so. The receipt read that the cotton would be delivered upon payment of charges, etc., “to - or -order.” Of course, the authority is not only to fill in one blank but to fill in each. This is the rule of the law merchant and is also provided for in article 5624, Rev. St., as follows: “If the alteration was authorized, the warehouse*327man shall be liable according to the terms of the receipt as altered.”
The motion for rehearing of appellee Paul Donald is granted, since the judgment below was instructed in ■ his favor, and it does not appear by the undisputed evidence that the loan was obtained from the appellant for his benefit, or that he was a partner in D. H. Price & Co. at the time of the conversion of the cotton or that D. H. Price in procuring the conversion of the cotton was acting i-n behalf of any one other than himself; and no party to this appeal has sought the remand of this case for the disposition of these issues of fact.
The other motion we believe to be not well taken. Southerland issued a negotiable receipt to D. H. Price & Co. and same was lawfully pledged to the appellant. Southerland, who delivered the cotton without presentation of these negotiable receipts, did so at his peril.
Our judgment heretofore rendered, in so far as the same authorizes judgment in favor of Southerland over against Paul Donald, is reformed so as to eliminate that order from the decree. In all other respects all motions are overruled.