Court Opinion

ID: 9834154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:20:40.99635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:12.118431
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant, in his motion for rehearing, insists that the question of conversion of the personal property should have been submitted to the jury. We overrule this contention. It is undisputed in the record that appellant locked up the building containing the appellee’s property; that appellant had no authority to seize this property; that when asked to return the personal property to appellee he declined to do so. McKinney testified that he demanded the property and that Harnden refused to give it to him. When Harnden was questioned with reference to this matter, he gave the following testimony:
“Q. Well, anyway, Sid Malone demanded of you that you return the property to McKinney, didn’t he? A. McKinney did.”
This undisputed evidence shows a conversion of the property by appellant, and the fact that he afterwards tendered it back to McKinney would not be sufficient to prevent the conversion from being complete, when he took the property and refused to surrender it to its owner. Henderson v. Beggs, (Tex.Civ.App.) 207 S.W. 565.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing will be overruled.