Court Opinion

ID: 9829894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:42:38.430597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:08.452912
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In its motion for a rehearing appellee insists that this court is in error in basing our conclusions upon the assumption that the sale of the goods to Rose Hiayes was made with knowledge as to the character of their intended use, and insists that there is no proof nor contention that any officer of the furniture company knew anything about the use to which the furniture would be put, except as to the first purchase, amounting to $4,415.35, sold by, Mr. Strickland, the manager of the corporation. Appellant points out items constituting subsequent sales amounting to $1,300, and insists that appel-lee should have judgment therefor, because Willingham and Walker, the salesmen who made the sales subsequent to the first, had no acquaintance with appellant, merely knew her to be a customer of the house, had no knowledge of the intended use of the goods, and that all purchases subsequent to the first were made without knowledge of Strickland and at a time when Strickland was out of the city.
[6] Under the findings of the jury, appellee was not entitled to recover. Appellee’s statement that there is no evidence or not sufficient evidence to sustain the findings of the jury is not sustained by the record. There was ample evidence to sustain the findings. Appellee did not raise the question of the sufficiency of the evidence in the trial court, and is not in a position to question its sufficiency here.
The motion is overruled.