Court Opinion

ID: 9680341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:30:07.335605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:28.118502
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
McDONALD, Judge
(dissenting).
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled by the majority of the court without written opinion.
I respectfully dissent.
While the Diner’s Club card may have been a guarantee to Hertz Rent-A-Car, when the Diner’s Club paid Hertz the full rental for the use of the car during the entire period of time from January 14,1960 (the day it was rented), until January 24; 1960 (the day it was recovered), the rental contract was fulfilled.
If the appellant converted the car, he was guilty of theft by bailee, as charged. If he became a thief, then the bailment ceased, and Hertz was entitled to no rent money on the car.
Certainly, the evidence does not reflect that the Diner’s Club *636undertook to guarantee the acts of a thief. The club only guaranteed payment of rent.
A thief would not be a bailee, and he would owe no rent. One cannot be both a bailee and a thief at the same time. He either remains a bailee or he becomes a thief.
Had the Diner’s Club only paid Hertz for six days’ rental— that is, up until the time (January 20) that Hertz filed the complaint — then a different question would be presented.
I feel that the motion for rehearing should be granted.