Court Opinion

ID: 9832953
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:19:39.125511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:56.194466
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing Made by Both Parties.
We will first dispose of appellee’s motion. The first ground is that the court did not carefully read the authorities cited in their brief. This is the usual complaint of the loser. We must confess our surprise that such, a complaint comes from so eminent and able lawyers who must know better. We read every case cited by counsel carefully and every proposition made. It must not be supposed because we make no comment upon or set out all the authorities counsel in any case may cite that they have not been well considered and not overlooked. If we do not think they are applicable and give us no aid in the solution of the question, we can see no need to cite them and load the opinion down with the citation of authorities and the discussion of cases and matter we do not believe applicable.
The next complaint counsel sets forth in 16 assignments, all being similar and to the effect that the court erred in sustaining the assignment of appellant; but no reason is given for such general complaint.
Again appellant makes the contention that this court was in error in stating article 247a, Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, providing for attachment based on unliquidated demands as applicable, because it is only applicable to eases where personal service cannot be obtained in this state, and it was not alleged or shown that personal service could not be obtained in this state; and amount of the bond not fixed by the judge or clerk issuing, etc.
The affidavit for the attachment expressly recited:
“That defendant is not a resident of the state of Texas, but on the contrary is a resident of the city of San Francisco, state of California.”
So there is nothing in appellant’s contention on the point. •
There is nothing in the holding of this court to the effect that a replevin bond in an attachment has the effect of discharging the attachment or precluding the defendant from quashing the writ of attachment for defects in the affidavit, and after reading the cases cited by appellee of 6 Corpus Juris, p. 838, § 296; Moss v. Katz, 69 Tex. 411, 6 S. W. 764, citing other cases, are not applicable or are to the contrary of our holding. Appellee has entirely misconceived the-holding of this court. By this attachment appellant .secured service on the nonresident defendants who came in, answered, and pleaded over, then by virtue of this replevy bond removed the goods from the jurisdiction of this court and out of the state. Of course, so far as appellant was concerned he was protected by the replevy bond. But when appellee took this method to get the goods out of the possession of the sheriff, and remove the goods to another state where they were still in his possession and were out of this state on the day of the trial, he had placed himself where he could not surrender the .goods, and demand that appellant receive them in compliance with' the contract of sale. If he had left them with the railroad or left them in the hands of the sheriff, in custodia legis, he would be in quite a different position.
We do not hold that the replevy bond cuts off his right to show a performance of his contract. It may be that every blanket in that shipment complied with the contract, but the removal of those goods from the custody of the law and from, the state operated to prevent appellant from an inspection thereof. Of course, that is still an open question as to whether the goods shipped met the conditions of the contract and what damages, if any, resulted from appellant’s refusal to receive them or by reason of any damages resulting to appellant by reason of the fact the goods shipped were damaged. In holding that there was no objection to the finding of the court that' the value of the damaged blankets was put by the court at $1.50 seems to be reiterated and acquiesced in by appel-lee’s motion for a rehearing. No question was raised on the point and that value was not contested, and hence appellee is therefore mistaken when he says we were not familiar with the facts in the case in so holding.
We will leave open as a matter of course any material fact to be determined in this case or as to any breach of the contract. And in reply to appellant’s motion, we decline to reverse and render for the reason stated in this and the original 'opinion.
Aside from our express holding upon certain law issues set out, every other fact matter is left open. The motions for rehearing of both parties are overruled.