Court Opinion

ID: 9830587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:18:11.009258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:24.584664
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The contention made in the motion, that the judgment rendered by this court on the $2,500 note made by Trabue and Etheridge-to the bank is against Trabue alone, is not supported by the record. The judgment as rendered and entered by this court is against both Trabue and Etheridge for the balance, including interest and attorney’s fees, due on that note. And the judgment as rendered and entered provides that any sum paid by Trabue on account of the recovery against him on that note, as well as any sum paid on account of the recovery on that note out of the proceeds of the sale ordered of the lumber, should operate as a credit in Trabue’s favor against the recovery adjudged against him in favor of Etheridge. Calling attention to this feature of the judgment is a sufficient answer, it would seem, to the complaint made that a recovery over for the amount of the attorney’s fees adjudged against him was not awarded in Trabue’s favor against Etheridge.
[10] The contention made, that it appeared that the bank, by authorizing Etheridge to sell same, had waived its lien on the lumber, is overruled. We do not think Trabue should be heard to urge such a contention. As a part of the purchase price he was to pay Etheridge for the lumber, he had agreed to pay Etheridge’s indebtedness to the bank, secured by the lien. Under these circumstances, we think he should be held to have taken the lumber charged with that indebtedness.
We do not think Trabue has cause to complain of the adjudication as to costs made by this court. It appearing that the transcript filed by him in this court was applied for by him after a transcript obtained by the bank had been filed here, it is not clear that he might not properly have been charged with the payment of a greater proportion of the costs than was adjudged against him. The effect of the judgment entered here was to charge him with the costs in the court below, except such as were incurred in the injunction proceedings, and with one-half of the costs of the appeal, which included the costs of the transcripts filed here.
The motion is overruled.