Court Opinion

ID: 9828274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:15:37.963748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:46.860449
License: Public Domain

On Motion of Appellees for Rehearing.
As pointed out by appellant in his reply to the motion, the record does not support the statement in the opinion, and the contention in the motion, that it appeared that McLean and Barnett had possession of the colt at the time the writs of garnishment were served on them. At that time, it appeared from the undisputed testimony, it seems, the colt was in appellant’s possession. The garnishment proceedings then pending were not against McLean and Barnett, but were against a bank, to reach effects of appellant’s supposed to be in its hands.
[2] It was contended, in the testimony of McLean and Barnett, as stated in the opinion, that it was understood between them and. appellant, at the time they turned the colt over to him, “that he was to take it conditionally; that there was a garnishment against thq bank and some debts also that had to be settled.” If it could be claimed that, because of this understanding, a lien on the colt existed in favor of McLean and Barnett to secure a liability they had incurred on appellant’s account, that is the most that could be claimed to have resulted from it. Before McLean and Barnett, by virtue of such an understanding, would have been entitled to assert any right to the colt as against appellant, it must have appeared that they had discharged such liability, and then their right only would have been to foreclose the lien. As said in the opinion, it was not pretended that McLean and Barnett had foreclosed a lien they asserted on *70the colt, and that appellees as the purchasers at their foreclosure sale, or in any other lawful way, had acquired their rights as lienors. Appellees could not have acquired rights, if any existed, in favor of McLean and Barnett as lienors, by a sale of the colt under executions against them.
[3] The contention made that appellant was not entitled to maintain his suit against appellees, because it appeared that the colt did not belong to him, but belonged to the estate of John Rogers, deceased, and because it did not appear that there was no administration pending on the estate of John Rogers, nor that there was no necessity for such an administration, is not believed to be tenable. It did appear that, if appellant was not the sole owner, as the result of the partition made by McLean and Barnett, of the colt, in common with the other heirs of John Rogers, he owned same, and lawfully was in possession of it at the time it was seized under the executions appellees claimed under. It seems that such ownership by him in common with the other heirs of John Rogers, accompanied by his actual possession of the colt at the time it was levied on, was sufficient, as against appellees, to entitle him to maintain the suit. Stockbridge v. Crockett, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 69, 38 S. W. 401.
The motion is overruled.