Court Opinion

ID: 9831730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:19:21.834318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:37.454028
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In its motion fon rehearing appellant points out an erroneous finding of fact made by us which constitutes the basis of one of the reasons upon which we affirmed the judgment below. We got the impression from the record *1094that the property involved in appellee’s mortgage was acquired about .the same time the mortgage was executed. This was error. The evidence shows that it was acquired something like six months after the execution of appellant’s mortgage which was quite a while prior to the execution of appellee’s mortgage. With the correction of this mistake, one of the reasons for affirming the judgment fails, hut we stated that there were two or more reasons and two were given. The other reason, namely, that the evidence raised a jury question as to whether the property was acquired in the meat business as distinguished from the grocery business, is unaffected, and we are still of the opinion that that reason alone affords sufficient basis for our holding.
. In its motion appellant concedes the correctness of our construction of the description in the mortgage wherein we held that the word “which” was intended to be. “one” or “a.” It is insisted, however, that with such change the description of the mortgaged property is not ambiguous and shows that the display counter only, and not the Hussman refrigerator, was mortgaged to appellee.
We are unable to see any valid answer to this argument, if it be true that Hussman Walk-in Meat refrigerators usually have display counters used in connection therewith. In such case, to say that such a counter was made for one such refrigerator would he common parlance. For instance, the description of a trailer as one made by a named person for a Buick roadster would involve no uncertainty as to the meaning of the language. We find ourselves perhaps unable to say, as a matter of judicial knowledge, and certainly unable to say from information to be gleaned from the record, that display counters are not usually used in connection with such refrigerators as certainly so as trailers are used in connection with trucks and automobiles.
We have therefore concluded that ap-pellee’s mortgage is properly to be interpreted as covering only the display counter and not the refrigerator. Both the counter and refrigerator being in the possession of the defendant below, the burden, of course, was upon the plaintiff to show the existence of a valid mortgage against both articles.
We are now of opinion that the foreclosure should have been ordered only as to the display countermand its separate value being given, the judgment should be reformed accordingly.
It is therefore our opinion that the motion for rehearing should be granted, our former judgment set aside, the judgment of the trial court reformed so as to provide a foreclosure only upon the display counter, and in the event that the said H. O. Wooten Grocer Company shall fail so to deliver said property then that Wade Meat Company have judgment against the said H. O. Wooten Grocer Company for the sum of $300 as the agreed value of said display counter, and that as reformed the judgment below be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.