Court Opinion

ID: 9828945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:52:36.147164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:55.286670
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant vigorously assails our finding to the effect that under the evidence there was no issue to go to the jury on the value of the equipment on the Triangle lease. In our opinion we stated that there was no proof in the record of such value, except that of Robinson “who testified that the half interest on which he claimed a lien was worth $2,000.” This finding is questioned by appellee. We quote from appellant’s motion all the testimony in the record bearing upon this issue. Robinson testified:
“I suppose that the personal property that I claim was on the Triangle lease — the property that I claim to have a mortgage on — prior to the time we all met there on March 5th, was worth $2,000.”
It was shown that upon some former hearing he had testified:
“It has two pieces of property, the Triangle lease out there — there was about $12,000 worth of equipment at the time I secured it.”
The testimony in the latter quotation is in no sense in conflict with that in the former. The values testified to in the latter relate to the time appellee secured his lien on the property; in the former to the time he transferred the lien to appellant.
The credit to which appellant was entitled was the value of the property which Robinson guaranteed he would get' a first lien on, namely, a half interest in the equipment on the Triangle lease. There was no guarantee as to what equipment was there, or as to its value, but only that the claim assigned to appellant should constitute a first lien thereon. The value of the equipment at the time the lien was originally created was immaterial. The amount of the credit on the note was fixed by the agreement of the parties as the shortage occasioned by the failure to have the lien which appellant was purchasing allowed as a first charge on a half interest in the equipment; and the amount of that shortage was fixed by the value of such half interest at the time of the transfer.
No other proof being offered upon this subject, and appellee having admitted and allowed a credit to the full amount the testimony would warrant, there was no issue of fact in this regard for the jury to determine.
The motion is overruled.