Court Opinion

ID: 9828935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:52:09.3146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:55.103651
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In his motion for rehearing, the appellant has urged the contention that the findings of fact by the trial court, in certain particulars, are in the face of the undisputed record facts, and also that his conclusions of law are contrary to the law of the case.
Treating the assignments of appellant as properly raising these questions, as we did on the original hearing, we are nevertheless of the opinion that they, at most, show that the trial court, in part, based the judgment upon wrong reasons. We think there is ample evidence in the court’s conclusions of fact and in the record to sustain the judgment rendered, and we adhere to the view that it was the proper judgment in the case.
Appellant also insists that our holding is in conflict with the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals for the Sixth District, in Adams v. Paton, 173 S. W. 546. In considering this case originally, we carefully examined the case cited, and believed it inapplicable on the facts, although the writer omitted to discuss or refer to such case. We have again considered the decision, and believe it is clearly distinguishable from the instant case. There a peremptory instruction was given, and the court merely held that a landlord is not estopped from suing a purchaser for conversion, where he did nothing to induce the purchase, and where he did not know of it until after the application of the proceeds, which were accepted by the landlord in ignorance of the fact that they were the proceeds of crops sold by the tenant without his consent. The facts in the Adams Case show that the landlord testified that he had not only notified his tenant not to sell any cotton, but had forbidden him to do so, and also that there was evidence that the landlord was ignorant of the fact that the proceeds of the alleged converted cotton had been placed to his credit in bank, and same was withdrawn by him in ignorance of the fact that it was proceeds of his cotton. Justice Hodges, speaking' for the court, emphasized the point that there was evidence showing these facts, and that such evidence made the issue one for the jury. He expressly stated that the facts distinguished the case from Melaskey v. Jarrell, cited by us in the original opinion.
Adhering to the view that this case was correctly decided by us on the original hearing, we overrule the motion for rehearing.
Motion overruled.