Court Opinion

ID: 9771452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:44:07.300123+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:31.624670
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
Appellee contends there is some evidence that appellant at the time of the sale on June 24, 1957 had knowledge from the pleadings in the case of the manner in which the car had been repossessed and hence ratified the acts of its agents. We do not agree. Although appellee’s petition was filed on May 24, 1957, there is nothing in the record before us to show when appellant was served with citation or a copy of such petition, or when appellant filed its original answer. The amended answer was not filed until April 3, 1959. Moreover, appellee testified that he had received a letter from appellant stating that it had possession of the car and trying to get him “to come down and get it.” Having ignored such request, appellee is not in a position to claim exemplary damages because the car was later sold or to assert that such sale constituted a ratification of the manner in which the car had been repossessed by appellant’s agents.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.