Court Opinion

ID: 9829006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:54:58.243283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:56.291146
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
[2] In affirming this case we acted on the theory that J. V. Harmon, the landlord, had constructive possession of J. H. Harmon’s one-half of the cotton after it was stored in the warehouse. After further consideration of the evidence, we are of the opinion that J. V. Harmon lost his lien on J. H. Harmon’s one-half of said cotton by his consenting to the delivery of the cotton tickets to the bank and consented that the same might be sold by the bank when he at that time made no claim of his lien, and had no understanding with the bank that the proceeds of the sale after paying the bank’s claim should be applied to his lien. Nor is there any evidence showing that J. H. Harmon agreed to the excess being applied by the bank to said lien. Under the evidence, we have reached the conclusion that J. V. Harmon lost his lien, and that the levy on the garnishment created a lien upon the fund superior to his claim.
The motion for rehearing is granted, and the judgment will be reversed and here rendered for appellant.