Court Opinion

ID: 9833594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:51:49.832932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:04.723319
License: Public Domain

Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing.
[4] Upon further consideration of this case, we have reached the conclusion that this court fell into error in reversing the judgment. As against the appellant, the Walker Mercantile Company, the plaintiff’s petition stated a cause of action within the jurisdiction of the county court. That cause of action consisted of the right to recover damages, because that defendant had unlawfully converted certain cotton of the alleged value of §350, and upon which the plaintiff had a valid lien, and had thereby deprived the plaintiff of that security for its debt. No foreclosure of the lien was sought or obtained as to the cotton alleged to have been converted; and therefore, while the petition did not show jurisdiction as to the other defendant, who is not complaining, it showed jurisdiction as to the cause of action asserted and recovered upon as against the Walker Mercantile Company; and therefore we recede, from our former holding upon that subject. This case is distinguishable from Kelley v. Stevens, heretofore decided by this court. In that case there was a foreclosure sought and obtained against all the property, that which was alleged to have been converted by one of the defendants, as well as that not converted.
All the other questions presented in appellant’s brief have received due consideration, and are decided against it.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing is granted, and the judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Motion granted. Judgment affirmed.