Court Opinion

ID: 9828202
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:12:17.81001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:45.652436
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee complains of the following holdings of this court in our original opinion:
“Hence we conclude that there is no evidence to the effect that the tools described in the mortgage were not the same tools described in the mortgage given by Homan to the American National Bank, and all of said testimony strongly indicated that Homan had one set of drilling tools and -that the same was moved from Sharp-Mahaney lease to Crystal Falls.”
“We very much doubt the evidence being sufficient to justify the court in submitting special issue No. 1 as requested by defendants.”
Appellee’s contention is based upon the fact that part of the tools in question were wrapped with burlap while located at Sharp-Mahaney lease and about 18 months after-wards, and when the attachment was issued and the tools sold, they were not wrapped with .burlap; hence appellee claims they could not have been the same set of tools.
We do not think these facts prove, or even tend to prove, that they were not the same string of tools, as it cannot be contended that, because the tools were wrapped at one time, they would have been wrapped eighteen months afterwards. There is no evidence in the record even tending to show that Geo. S. Homan had more than one set of tools, and the mere fact that he had sold one or two tools which were not covered by the mortgage does not show that he had another complete string of tools as described in the mortgage. If Homan had been the owner of two strings of tools, it would perhaps have been an easy matter for defendant to have proven the same; hence in view of the facts proven we must conclude that there was no evidence justifying the submitting of special charge No. 1 of defendants.
And again after a jury had found that there was no mortgage, hence there could have been only one answer to said special issue, and if there was no mortgage, of course the tools could have not been described in the mortgage.
The.motion for rehearing is overruled.