Court Opinion

ID: 9834443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:36:02.879851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:15.493021
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In this case all of the appellees have filed a motion for rehearing, in which they controvert the correctness of our decision in sustaining the sixth, seventh, and eighth assignments of error, and reversing the case because of the admission of the testimony referred to in those assignments. That motion has been duly considered, and is overruled.
Appellee D. M. Wilson has filed a separate motion for rehearing, in which it is contended that the judgment in his favor should be affirmed. Two reasons assigned in the motion for that contention are stated as follows:
“Because the undisputed evidence shows that Mrs. Johnnie Hamlett was the beneficiary of fire insurance carried against the improvements on the property, which improvements were destroyed by fire, and on said insurance ample money was collected to make payment of this and other indebtedness held by her against the property, and the checks in payment of said insurance were made payable to her, and she voluntarily waived her claim on an amount of money more than sufficient to take up this indebtedness and other indebtedness held by her against the property, and permitted the indebtedness sued on to go unpaid, and an amount of money more than sufficient to pay the same to be paid over to A. Reese; wherefore she is estopped from now asserting any claim over against D. M. Wilson.
“Because the undisputed evidence showed that subsequent to the execution of the mechanic’s lien contract originally the basis of the lien securing the note sold and transferred by this appellee to Mrs. Hamlett and basis for her suit, the defendants A. Reese and Maggie L. Reese conveyed the land in question to one L. B. Reese, wherein the said note was described and the said L. B. Reese assumed and contracted to pay the same, and that thereafter the said L. B. Reese reconveyed the property to Maggie L. Reese and A. Reese, wherein the said note is described, and the said Maggie L. Reese and A. Reese, as part consideration for said reconveyance, agreed and bound themselves to pay off and discharge the same, in both of which said conveyances a vendor’s lien was retained to secure said note; wherefore said note became secured by a valid vendor’s lien, regardless of the validity of the original mechanic’s lien securing the same, and the said Reeses were estopped from questioning the mechanic’s lien*, and the liability or not of this appellee on said original mechanic’s lien instrument becomes immaterial.”
The record sustains both of these contentions, and we have reached the conclusion that the facts therein referred to justified the trial court in rendering judgment in favor of D. M. Wilson; and therefore his motion for rehearing has been granted, and the judgment in his favor affirmed.
Appellee Mrs. Johnnie T. Hamlett has also filed a separate motion to retax the costs, her contention being that as the case has been reversed on account of an error of the trial court in admitting testimony not offered by her, but by T. B. Dockery, no costs of the appeal should be taxed against her.. We think that contention is sound, and that all the costs of the appeal should be paid by appellee T. B. Dockery; and for. that reason the motion to retax the costs has been sustained.