Court Opinion

ID: 9831718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:19:04.21408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:37.344346
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Both parties have filed motions for rehearing and express some doubt as to the proper procedure to be followed in the court below.
Appellees have requested that we clarify our opinion so as to expressly affirm the judgment of the trial court as to the ownership of the Hawkins’ judgment.
Appellants, on the other hand, complain of our holding' on that issue and request a general reversal of the judgment by reason of the introduction of the correspondence with the American National Insurance Company and the trial court’s refusal to strike out the various allegations contained in the answer of the Stockton Building Association and repeated in appellees’ application for a receiver.
The above evidence and allegations were, we think, properly before the court on the question of the appointment of - a receiver, but the admission of the correspondence *133should have been limited to that question, as requested by appellants.
While the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that the Hawkins’ judgment belonged to appellants, yet it can readily be seen that the correspondence and the facts surrounding it might have influenced the jury to so find.
We have concluded that the judgment should be reversed generally and the issues retried in accordance with these holdings.