Court Opinion

ID: 9828406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:20:32.237699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:47.786581
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The plaintiffs in error, called appellants in the original opinion, and also ip. this opinion (other than Lawrence Johnson)', have filed their motion for rehearing in this court and present again the proposition urged in their brief as grounds to reverse the judgment of the trial court against them.
These appellants earnestly insist in their motion for rehearing, as was done in their brief, that the evidence is insufficient to support the findings of the jury, and request that this court summarize the testimony supporting the making of the two alleged contracts.
It is uncontroverted that J. W. Craig was indebted to appellee in the amount of the judgment. Appellee testified that in a conversation he had with Craig near harvest time, he said to Craig he wanted something definite about a settlement before harvest begun; that they wanted Craig to agree that the wheat would be harvested and sold and the money left with the purchaser until all the wheat was delivered, and he and Craig have a settlement; that Craig said that would be perfectly satisfactory to him and would be all right; that when we get ready to thresh we will have an understanding as to whether the wheat be cut and stacked or whether it would be cut with a header, or cut and hauled to the thresher and threshed; that when we get ready to thresh that will be all right, and that is the way we will deliver it. Appellee also testified that about three weeks later, just as threshing begun, he was at the farm and told Craig as soon as he could get a sample of wheat he would go and see what he could do with it, and asked Craig where he wanted to deliver it. Craig said he preferred to deliver it at Summerfield, but what ever appel-lee wanted to do would be all right; that Craig told him to take a sample of the wheat and let him know where to haul it; that witness took the sample, went to Summer-field, found Lawrence Johnson was not there, and went to Hereford, found Johnson, and sold the wheat to him, with the understanding that Craig and appellee had agreed that the wheat was to be sold and the money held by the purchaser until all the wheat was *1010delivered, and Craig and appellee would have a settlement, and they would then settle with Johnson; and that Johnson agreed to hold the money for appellee. Mrs. Monday, the daughter of appellee, testified that she heard the conversation between appellee and Mr. Craig at the farm, and that Mr. Craig told appellee it would be all right for him to sell the wheat to Mr. Johnson or Mr. Harrison, and it was agreeable with Craig that all the money he held by the purchaser until a settlement was made between him and appellee.
These appellants, in the first, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth assignments of error in their motion for rehearing, state that this court committed error in holding that the contract between appellee and Lawrence Johnson constituted an equitable lien on the wheat and the proceeds thereof.
An examination of the original opinion will show that this court did not hold that the contract between appellee and Lawrence Johnson constituted an equitable lien on the wheat and the proceeds, but the holding is that the contract between appellee and J. W. Craig constituted an equitable assignment by J. W. Craig to appellee of the wheat and its proceeds to secure the payment of the indebtedness sued on. J. W. Craig having the right to make the equitable assignment to appel-lee, it became an equitable lien between J. W. Craig and appellee, therefore Lawrence Johnson, the general manager of the Sum-merfield Grain Company who contracted with appellee to hold the money until the settlement between Craig and appellee, was acting within the scope of his authority in making the agreement, and his principal, the Summerfield Grain Company, was bound' by such agreement.
The motion is overruled.