Court Opinion

ID: 9831039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:44:45.915969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:29.922411
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Counsel for the Huey Company seem to misunderstand the ruling with respect to the application of the payments made to that company. They assert there is nothing to show such company intended to waive its lien for the purchase price to the extent of such payments. No ruling with respect to waiver was made.
The evidence shows that when the payments were made they were applied by the 1-Iuey Company upon the notes as stated in the main opinion. This being true, the Huey Company could not thereafter change the application- thus made to the prejudice of a junior lien upon the machines. 21 R. C. L. 93, and note in 96 Am. St. Rep. 76.
The question is not one of waiver, but of application of payment and right to change an application once made to the prejudice of an interested third person without the latter’s consent. The authorities sustain the view that this cannot be done.
This is the only matter in any of the motions for rehearing which calls for comment.
All motions for rehearing are overruled.