Court Opinion

ID: 6655796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 20:57:39.355484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:59:54.598652
License: Public Domain

The following opinion on motion for rehearing was filed November 16, 1904. Motion denied; and motion and brief stricken from files:
By the Court: Upon the motion for rehearing in this case it is contended:
1. That the petition was insufficient because it failed to allege the particulars in regard to the mortgage lien; but, in the argument upon this point, the plaintiffs in error have overlooked the fact that the petition alleges that the *668plaintiff below bad possession of tbe property at tbe time of the attachment, which constitutes the act of conversion complained of. One who is in possession of property claiming a lien thereon may maintain an action of conversion against one who wrongfully attaches the property.
2. It is contended that the commissioner has not recognized the statute which provides that a chattel mortgage shall be presumed to be fraudulent, unless the same be accompanied by an immediate delivery, and be followed by an actual and continued change of possession of the things mortgaged. But here again the fact is overlooked that the petition alleges, and the preponderance of the evidence shows, that the mortgagee had taken actual possession of the property before the attachment complained of. Under such circumstances, there is no presumption of fraud against the mortgagee in favor of an attaching creditor. Chaffee v. Atlas Lumber Co., 43 Neb. 224.
3. It is also contended that the defense of res judicata was established upon the trial. This defense is predicated upon the ruling of the court in the attachment proceedings refusing to dissolve the attachment, but as the attachment proceedings were ancillary only to the main action, and the plaintiff Healey was dismissed from the action by the final judgment rendered therein, the ruling upon the motion to dissolve the attachment would not be res judicata as to him. Such ruling does not become res judicata, unless it is necessarily involved and confirmed in the final judgment in the case. It was therefore unnecessary to determine what effect it would have had upon the rights of the parties in the property if the defendant Healey had been a party to the final judgment.
4. It is asserted in the brief upon the motion for rehearing that the issues involved in the case are not cor-ree,tly stated in the opinion, but there is no merit in this assertion.
5. There are in the brief unjust, querulous and unfounded criticisms of the reasoning and the motives of the commissioner who wrote the opinion. These criticisms are *669of so personal and offensive a nature as to call for an expression of disapproval on the part of tlie court. The commissioners are officers of the court. They are called upon by the huvs of the state to perform important and arduous duties in the transaction of the business of the court. They are entitled to the same confidence and respectful treatment that is accorded to the court itself. The brief itself is not fit to remain upon the records of the court. The counsel for the plaintiffs in error have gone so far as to insert offensive expressions in the motion itself. In addition to this, and as above; pointed out, there is no merit in the motion. It is therefore ordered that the motion for rehearing and the brief filed thereon be stricken from the records of the court.
Motion denied ; and motion and brief stricken FROM FILES.