Court Opinion

ID: 9832314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:48:16.122239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:45.440924
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
 In their motion for rehearing appellants call our attention for the first time to certain recitals in the judgment which were overlooked by us on the original hearing, no point having been made thereon in appellants’ brief. The question raised is a fundamental one, and, though not complained of in the court below, nor in this court on the original submission, it is nevertheless our duty to consider same, when our attention is directed thereto. The judgment against the sureties on the replevy bond was for the sum of $804, the value of the property replevied at the date of the execution of the replevy bond, together with the sum of $34 interest on said $804 from the date of said replevy bond to the date of the judgment. Judgment was also for all costs expended. It is well settled by many decisions that sureties on a replevy bond in sequestration are not liable for the costs of the trial court. Many of the decisions so holding are collated in an opinion in the case of Williams et al. v. Walker et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 290 S. W. 299.
By article 6852, R. S. 1925, it is provided, in substance, that, in case the suit is decided against the defendant, final judgment shall be entered against all the ob-ligors on the replevy bond jointly and severally for the value of the property re-plevied and the value of the fruits, hire,, revenue, or rent thereof. This is a general provision. Article 6858, R. S. 1925, provides, in substance, that in suits for the enforcement of a lien upon property, the defendant, should he replevy the property, shall not be required to account for the fruits, hire, revenue, or rent of the same. This is a special provision governing the liability in a case like the instant case, and must control as against the general provision of article 6852.
 Construing the provisions of these articles together and applying them to the instant case, the conclusion would seem to follow that the only proper judgment which the lower court could have rendered against the sureties on the replevy bond in this case was a judgment for the value of the property replevied. Since the proceeding is a statutory one, and the action in this case was not *554an original action upon the bond, the liability of the sureties must be determined with reference to the' statutes thereon. We are unable to find any provision of the statute authorizing a judgment against the sureties for interest, and in the absence of such provision it is our opinion that the trial court was unauthorized to render judgment against them therefor.
The motion for rehearing will be granted to the extent only of so reforming the judgment as to eliminate therefrom the recovery of $34 interest and the awarding of the costs of the lower court against the sureties on the re-plevy bond. This reformation of the judgment will relieve the sureties on the replevy bond from the payment of any costs of this appeal. One-half the costs of this» appeal will be adjudged against the appellees, and one-half against the appellant W. A. Scott.
In all other respects the motion for rehearing is overruled.