Court Opinion

ID: 9831073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:46:38.358509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:30.230998
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[4] After further consideration of this case upon appellee’s motion for rehearing! we have reached the conclusion that this court fell into error when it rendered judgment against appellee. We still hold that, if the cotton for the value of which this suit was brought was taken from the possession of the carrier *579by an officer of the state of Ohio, acting under an attachment issued by a court of that state, and was not returned to the carrier, appellee is not entitled to recover. The identity of the cotton seized by the Ohio constable and that delivered to appellant for shipment was not submitted to the jury; and we are now of opinion that appellee has the right to have that question tried and determined in the trial court. In other words, while the proof may sustain our finding upon that subject as stated in our former opinion, it does not appear that the case cannot be more fully developed upon that issue, and for that reason we hold that appellee is entitled to have it passed upon by a jury. We adhere to the other rulings disclosed by our former opinion.
For the reasons stated, appellee’s motion for rehearing is granted, and the judgment of this court reformed so that the case will stand reversed and remanded.
Motion granted. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.