Court Opinion

ID: 9706199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:34:11.378854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:20.075691
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Kelley, J.
Appellants, in point 5 of their petition for a rehearing, say:
“The court erred in its statement of the facts favorable to the appellee; namely, in the court’s statement in Line 6, Page 4, of its opinion that ‘but said Neal had previously moved his equipment back to Indianapolis’, in that the testimony of appellee clearly states that Neal was in Brown County at such time. (Tr. P. 246, L. 21 and following).”
*502We have reviewed page 4 and line 6, and other lines on said page of our opinion, and do not find the statement referred to by appellants. We do find, on page 3, lines 10 to 15, of our opinion the subject referred to. We there said:
“When appellee learned that his tractor had been sold and moved away he endeavored several times to have the dam completed by Mr. Neal, a contractor who had been working on said dam there in Brown County, but said Neal had previously moved his equipment back to Indianapolis and was not available for work because of previous commitments.”
The transcript reference made by appellants is to the cross-examination of the appellee on rebuttal. In considering the validity of a challenge to the judgment of the trial court, we, as has been many times said by our courts, must take the evidence most favorable to the appellee. Appellants’ brief, page 14, and the transcript, page 99, disclose the following from the testimony of appellee on direct examination:
“Q. After you found that the tractor was not available for your use down there, what did you do, if anything?
“A. Mr. Neal had brought his equipment back to Indianapolis, and I contacted him several times to try to get him to take a piece of it down there, and finally, when I contacted him he was unable to do it, due to prior commitments.”
It would seem that the foregoing quoted evidence fully sustains the objected to statement in our opinion.
The only other point of appellants’ rehearing petition which we deem of significance is that our holding contravenes a ruling precedent of the Supreme Court, viz: Citizens St. R. R. Co. v. Robbins (1896), 144 Ind. *503671, 42 N. E. 916, 43 N. E. 649, and is in conflict with Nickey v. Zonker (1889), 22 Ind. App. 211, 53 N. E. 478. The Robbins case declared the rule of measuring damages for the conversion of stock. We find nothing in our opinion which runs counter to the holding in that case. Nor do we perceive wherein it is contrary to the said Zonker case. A casual perusal of the latter mentioned case will disclose that the alleged damages were not proved nor was “the quantity and value of the property alleged to have been converted” established.
It seems to us that the rules applicable to damages in conversion as declared in Aufderheide v. Fulk (1916), 64 Ind. App. 149, 112 N. E. 399 (Transfer denied), cited in our opinion, are appropriate and convincing. It is noted that appellants make no reference thereto.
Petition for rehearing denied.
Note. — Reported in 131 N. E. 2d 348. Rehearing denied 132 N. E. 2d 272.