Court Opinion

ID: 9831589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:13:45.880468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:36.240158
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In his motion for rehearing, the appellant insists that we erred in our original opinion in refusing to render judgment in his favor and in holding that his petition was insufficient to warrant us to do so. Paragraph 3 of the petition reads as follows:
“That your petitioner, on the - day of January, 1927, applied unto Jim Steele, justice of the peace of precinct No. 1, Eastland county, Tex., for a distress warrant to be issued in terms of law, and commanding the sheriff or any constable of Eastland county, Tex., to seize the property owned by said tenant and situated on said premises. That in obedience to the writ issued by said justice of the peace the sheriff of Eastland county, Tex., to wit, John S. Hart, did seize the following described personal property, to wit: One Hoffman press; one cleaning machine; one boiler; one flat top desk; four tables; one Singer sewing machine — and that said personal property is now in the hands of the sheriff of Eastland county, Tex., by virtue of said distress warrant. That your petitioner claims a landlord’s lien upon said personal property to secure the payment of the rents now due by said defendant.”
It seems to be the appellant’s contention that the petition referred to a distress warrant which commanded the sheriff or any constable of Eastland county, Tex., to seize.the property owned by said tenant and situated on said premises and by such reference incorporated such distress warrant into the petition, which cured the deficiency pointed out in our original opinion.
*250Even granting that the distress warrant eo,uld be considered as a part of this petition on account of the reference thereto, it does not aid the discrepancy in any manner. The warrant did not command the officer to seize the property of the defendant situated in the leased premises, but merely commanded him to seize so much of the property of the defendant as shall be of value sufficient to satisfy the demand. Nowhere in this distress warrant is there any command- limiting the authority of the officer with reference to seizing property to that property belonging to the defendant situated in the leased premises. The nearest approach which appellant’s petition made to pleading a lien on the property described therein was in the statement that he claimed a lien thereon. Had he alleged that he had a lien thereon, such allegation might have been good as againsti a general demurrer, but the petition does not so allege, and we cannot agree that a mere statement that a landlord claims a lien is a sufficient pleading to warrant us to render a judgment in his favor foreclosing a landlord’s lien on property.
The motion will be overruled.