Court Opinion

ID: 9832300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:47:49.244782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:45.386847
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
[6] The question of marshaling of assets is not before this court at this time. The trial court has never ruled upon the question, and it would be improper for this court to undertake now to do so. We have no right to assume that the trial court will not properly rule upon the same when it undertakes to do so.
We see no occasion to modify or change the rulings in the original opinion. They were not inadvertently made, nor are they regarded as dicta, as is assumed by appellant. .We think the trial court will have no difficulty in understanding the ruling that upon the record here presented Bowen has not waived his lien, nor is he estopped from asserting the same against the proceeds of the wood after he has surrendered the same to his bailor, Loya, or deposited same in the registry of the court to await a determination of the priority of right of Bowen’s mortgage lien or Loya’s attachment lien. The authorities cited in the opinion recognize the right of a bailee to assert a claim adverse to his bailor after surrender of the bailed article. After such surrender the status quo ante of the property is restored, and in the absence of exceptional circumstances the rights of the parties should be the same as before the bailment contract. When money is the subject of the bailment it occurs to us that it would be best to return it into the registry of the court, so that when the priority of right is finally determined the decree can be effectively and assuredly enforced.
Motion overruled.