Court Opinion

ID: 9833595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:51:49.834737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:04.723662
License: Public Domain

Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
In our former opinion granting a rehearing and affirming the judgment in this case, it is stated that no foreclosure of the lien was sought or obtained as to the cotton alleged to have been converted. In making that statement, the thought in the writer’s mind was inaccurately expressed, the intention being to. say that no foreclosure was sought or obtained as against the Walker Mercantile Company; and, as we construe the pleadings and judgment, that statement is correct. The petition prayed for a judgment foreclosing the lien as against the defendant Martin, and the judgment forecloses the lien as against him against all of the mortgaged property then in his possession. But the cotton was not then in bis possession ; and therefore there was no foreclosure as to it. The plaintiff sought to and recovered against the Walker Mercantile Company for the conversion of the cotton, alleged to be of the value of §350, and neither sought nor obtained any other relief as against that defendant.
So we adhere to our last ruling, to the effect that the court had jurisdiction as to that branch of the case; and therefore appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.