Court Opinion

ID: 9831886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:27:02.169939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:38.830323
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant, Walker, in his motion for rehparing insists that this court is in error in stating in the opinion that, “At the request •of all parties the court below consolidated the two causes and the case was tried with Annabelle Ray as intervener in the original .suit,” as the record, as claimed, “clearly shows that all parties to the suit did not agree to the consolidation.”
On page 84 of the transcript, after stating the number and style of the case, the following order appears: “On this the 20th day of January, 1922, the court on his own motion, at the request of the parties hereto, consolidated with this cause the case of Annabelle Ray v. B. B. Wlalker, No. 8644, pending in this court, the consolidated case to be tried, as No. 8094,” the number of the original case between Walker and L. E. Ray.
The recital in the order as above that the parties to the suit requested the consolidation of the two suits imports such verity and conelusiveness of the fact recited as to justify this court in acting upon it as true. Especially would such be proper -in the absence of a direct attack upon the order as •entered. In addition .to the order itself, appellee insists that the order of consolidation was entered at the instance of appellant. True, appellant by special exception objected to the intervention which the court overruled, and in his amended motion for a new trial again complained that the intervener cannot assert her title to the property except by trial of rights of property; but the original and amended motions for new trial were not filed in time, and neither controverts the statement in the order that the parties requested the consolidation. We think, under the circumstances of the case, the wife being the claimant of the property and joined by the husband in her claim of ownership as her separate property, it is not fundamental error to consolidate the suits and permit her through intervention in the original suit to assert her ownership of the property. The property at all times remained in the custody of the sheriff under the attachment writ, and the wife’s suit in her intervention was to' have her property returned to her under her claim of ownership, or its value. On the trial all issues of fact were found in favor of Ray and his wife, and appellant recovered nothing by his suit.
We do not, by what has been said, intend to hold that in ordinary attachment suits third parties claiming to own the attached property, or an interest therein, and not an interest in the subject-matter of the suit, can intervene in the main action for the purpose of asserting their right to the property. The.proper course and practice is to assert the right by the statutory action of trial of the right of property. We only mean to hold that under the confused condition of the entire record reversible error is not made to appear.
The motion is overruled.