Court Opinion

ID: 9830136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:54:36.76416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:13.740250
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In its motion for rehearing appellant calls attention to the recent case of Phelps v. Jesse French, etc. (Tex. Civ. App.) 65 S.W.(2d) 374.
In the case mentioned Justice Looney, speaking for the Dalias Court of Civil Appeals, sustained a recovery by a foreign corporation of the purchase price of four pianos, owned by such corporation, stored in Texas upon repossession, and later sold to Phelps. There is no material difference between the facts in that case and the one at bar. As was stated in our original opinion, our conclusion sustaining the judgment of the lower court was reached with doubt as to its correctness.
Upon consideration of the motion for rehearing, the conclusion is reached that the ruling in the case cited is correct and that we erred in affirming the judgment sustaining the plea in abatement.
See, also, Miller v. Goodman, 91 Tex. 41, 40 S. W. 718; Shaw Piano Co. v. Ford (Tex. Civ. App.) 41 S. W. 198; Smith v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co. (Ark.) 58 S.W.(2d) 686; Vulcan, etc., v. Flanders (D. C.) 205 F. 102.
Accordingly the motion for rehearing is granted, the judgment is reversed, and the case remanded for trial upon its merits.