Court Opinion

ID: 9779255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:41:37.233149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:24.386912
License: Public Domain

*788OPINION ON PETITION TO REHEAR
W. M. LEECH, Special Justice.
Respondent, Cliff Pettit Motors, has filed a petition to rehear wherein three contentions are made. The first is that our decision is not equitable in that “a result opposite to that reached by the Court” should have been reached. The second, simply stated, is that this “Court failed to consider six issues properly before the Court”.
In response to these aforementioned contentions, the case of Mitchell v. Garrett, 510 S.W.2d 894 (Tenn.1974), wherein Supreme Court Rule No. 32 is cited, controls. Therein we said:
“A rehearing will be refused where no new argument is made, and no new authority adduced, and no material fact is pointed out as overlooked.”
Applying said rule to Respondent’s first and second contention, it is apparent that they are wthout merit and provide no basis for a petition to rehear.
Respondent’s third contention is that:
“By its (this Court’s) decision, enforcing such a judgment for the total amount paid by Miss Woods, the Court has indirectly, and without reference or citation, expressly overruled the holding found in Moore v. Howard Pontiac-American, Inc., 492 S.W.2d 227 (Ct.App.1973).”
Although this case and the case of Howard Pontiac-American, supra, are similar, they are clearly distinguishable. They can be distinguished first by the fact that Hovoard Pontiac-American is a Uniform Commerical Code case brought specifically pursuant to a statute, T.C.A. § 47-2-608. The instant case, however, is a case of multiple conversions brought pursuant to common law rules of law. Moreover, and more significantly, in Howard Pontiac-American, the automobile dealer had an interest in the vehicle which it sold to Moore. In the instant case, Cliff Pettit Motors had no interest in the vehicle that it converted, therefore it is not entitled to a credit for the brief time the automobile was used by the buyer, Miss Woods.
With these two distinctions in mind we hold that Respondent’s third contention is also without merit, and it necessarily follows that the petition to rehear is denied.
DYER, C. J., and CHATTIN, Mc-CANLESS and FONES, JJ., concur.