Court Opinion

ID: 9864606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 14:19:43.794672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:20.148576
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
In petitioning for a rehearing, the appellant has earnestly contended that the statement of facts contained in the opinion heretofore filed precludes him from properly presenting the matter to the supreme court of this state upon application for a hearing there. The following portions of the pleadings are asked to be made a part of the opinion of this court:
The complaint alleges that:
“W. S. Gray, without obtaining or asking the consent of the plaintiff, and without notice to plaintiff, has sold all of the cattle, hogs and other livestock and all the other personal property of whatsoever kind hereinabove mentioned and has converted the money and the whole thereof 'received therefor to the use of the said defendants; that defendants have failed and refused and do now fail apd refuse to account to plaintiff therefor . . . ; but said defendants *785have, appropriated and do now appropriate the same and the whole thereof to their own benefit and advantage. ’’
The defendant corporation answered the foregoing allegation as follows:
“Denies that this defendant without obtaining or asking the consent of plaintiff or without notice to plaintiff sold all of the cattle and hogs and livestock and all other personal property whatsoever on said ranch; . . . denies that this defendant has appropriated the whole or any part of any money or thing of value which belongs to or in which plaintiff is interested to its own use and benefit or advantage.”
Defendant W. S. Gray answers the foregoing allegations of the complaint as follows:
“Denies that this defendant converted the money and the whole thereof obtained from the sale of said cattle and the personal property to his own use. ’ ’
The foregoing extracts from the pleadings are hereby made a part of the opinion heretofore' filed herein, for the benefit of the appellant.
A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on December 29, 1921.
All the Justices concurred, except Waste, J., who did not vote.
Lawlor, J., was absent; Richards, J., pro tem., was acting.