Court Opinion

ID: 9864460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 13:11:00.560629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:26.954121
License: Public Domain

Humphreys, J. (on rehearing).. Our attention has been called to the facts that appellee sold his equity in the bus to 0. B. Cook, and that his right as original purchaser under the statute of Tennessee to recover the amount he paid appellant had passed to the subvendee. Appellant has cited the case Tschopik v. Lippincott (Tenn.) 48 S. W., p. 130, in support of its contention that appellee had no right to recover on his cross-bill because he had sold his equity in the property to O. B. Cook before filing same. This question was not made an issue in the trial court by the pleadings, testimony, and instructions of the court. It is well settled in this State that “a partv cannot, on appeal, contend for a theory of the case different from that which was contended for in the trial court.” Southern Ins. Co. v. Hastings, 64 Ark. 253; Shinn v. Plott, 82 Ark. 260. In view of this rule, it is unnecessary for us to discuss the effect of the decision cited upon the Tennessee statute involved in the instant case. The motion for a rehearing is therefore overruled.