Court Opinion

ID: 9829850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:41:06.276792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:07.762202
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing has been given due consideration, but we see no reason to recede from our former conclusions, and the motion is overruled.
Appellant, however, has asked us to file an additional conclusion of fact to the effect that the bill of sale from Sparkman to Wynne and Dudney did not retain a lien. We think our original opinion fairly discloses that the bill of sale did not, on its face, purport to reserve title to the property or any lien thereon. Furthermore, the instrument is in the statement of facts, and speaks for itself. Counsel for appellant, however, seems to think the case cannot be properly presented to the Supreme Court without the additional finding asked. In view of this, we accede to the request, and expressly find that the bill of sale does not, on its face, retain any lien.
It is thought proper to say that this additional finding is not really an ultimate fact, since this circumstance does not determine the issue as to whether or not Sparkman, at the time he conveyed the property to Wynne and Dudney, in fact retained a mortgage to secure the purchase price. Furthermore, the finding does not militate against the conclusion of the trial court, adopted by us, that the note for the purchase money was secured by chattel mortgage executed and registered on the same day that the bill of sale was made. We pointed out in the original opinion the reasons why the chattel mortgage was effective to secure the debt notwithstanding the execution on the same day of the bill of sale, which did not expressly retain a lien.
Motion overruled.