Court Opinion

ID: 9828480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:25:35.7623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:49.441590
License: Public Domain

On Motions for Rehearing.
Appellant’s motion, after due consideration, is overruled.
The motion by Intervener Ryan insists upon: (1) That his cross-assignments of error should have been sustained and judgment given him upon the replevy bond for rents. The reasons given in the main opinion for overruling this ground of the motion are deemed sufficient. (2) That, if intervener is held not entitled to the benefits of the replevy bond, he was entitled to judgment for the rents against the defendant, or at least to have the judgment so framed that his right of action for the rents against defendant shall not be prejudiced by the judgment. The trial court made this finding: “Plaintiff and intervener are denied recovery for rents against either the defendant or the sureties on his replevin bond.” It therefore appears the court decided that intervener was not entitled to recover rents from either the defendant or his sureties. The cross-assignments complain merely of the action of the court in denying a recovery on the bond. They do not present any question of defendant’s liability independently of the bond. When we held, in the main opinion, that the benefits of the replevin bond did not inure to intervener, there was nothing for us to do but to overrule the cross-assignments.
[5] We have no authority to revise the judgment of the district court except upon a matter distinctly specified by an assign*1142ment of error. We would be doing so if we now made an order that the judgment of the district court should be without prejudice to the right of intervener to prosecute an action against defendant for the rents.
The motion is overruled.