Court Opinion

ID: 9868666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:47:35.094433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:52.570740
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
In deciding this case we concluded that the judgment should be reformed and affirmed, the reform consisting in holding that the note for $260.75 was not a lien upon “the livery stable and outfit” for which the two larger notes were given; but we are now of the opinion that we erred in that ruling. In so ruling our attention was called alone to the testimony of defendant Shelton in which he said, that the note was made up partly by interest on the larger note and partly by the $40 per year which was charged for the rent of shed to the stable. We overlooked the fact that Jones testified that the note was' given wholly for the interest on the larger notes. It was a question for the jury who was right and who was wrong in their testimony, and they having found that the vendor’s lien existed for the payment, of all three of the notes, settles the question in favor of Jones. There being some evidence in support of the verdict, it is conclusive upon us. We are therefore of the opinion that the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals should be in all things affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered. And it is further ordered that the defendant in error recover of plaintiffs in error all costs expended in the writ of error to this court.
It is also ordered that plaintiffs in error’s motion for a rehearing be overruled.

Affirmed.