Court Opinion

ID: 9829408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:17:19.172544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:00.833504
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
On original hearing the question of what would be the proper measure of George Callihan’s damages, in the event of a recovery by him against Montrief, was not presented, and nothing we said was intended as a determination thereof. And to remove any doubt on that point we shall add that,, if Cal-lihan is entitled to recover of Montrief, the proper measure of his damages would be the extent to which his attachment lien on the property seized was depreciated, if any, by reason of the fire occurring while in Montrief’s possession. And if, after the fire, the market value of the pypperty left was enough to satisfy the attachment lien, then Callihan could recover nothing of Montrief. While the market value of the property would not of itself be the measure of damages, the same would necessarily be involved in determination of the real issue indicated above. Edmondson v. Carroll (Tex. Civ. App.) 28 S.W.(2d) 250; Carroll v. Edmondson (Tex. Com. App.) 41 S.W.(2d) 64.
Nor can we concur in the contention now made in Montrief’s motion for rehearing, in effect that testimony of the witness Yerney Anderson was sufficient to support an implied finding by the trial court that' after the fire the property remaining was worth more than Callihan’s judgment against Maley, defendant in the attachment suit, in the sum of $1,807.73. According to Anderson’s testimony pointed out in the motion, which was flatly contradicted by plaintiff’s testimony, the market value of the tools before the fire was $3,100, and $2,620 after the fire. We believe that the record precludes the implied finding suggested, in view of the recitals contained therein, indicating that plaintiff was denied a recovery because he had failed to prove the primary basis of his claim, to wit, the alleged negligence of Montrief in the first instance, to support which, as noted- in Montrief’s briefs here, no evidence was introduced; and in view of the fact that under the judgment of foreclosure of the attachment lien the tools were sold at auction to the highest bidder for only $325, and with no evidence to show that anything occurred at that sale to prevent a higher bid.
The motion of appellee Montrief is overruled; as is also the motion of appellant, which we have duly considered.