Court Opinion

ID: 6736054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 23:18:31.744906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:01:46.848852
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.

Since the foregoing opinion was filed, counsel for appellant have presented a petition for rehearing, in which they contend that there is no proper evidence to support the conclusion that, since the action was commenced, and prior to the trial, appellant had converted the grain covered by his mortgage by a sale thereof. In such petition counsel direct our attention to the testimony drawn out on cross-examination of plaintiff over proper objections, and they contend that this is the only evidence that the barley seized under the warrant had been disposed of. If counsel were correct in this contention, we think their argument would be unanswerable. But they have evidently overlooked the fact that later in the trial plaintiff was called as a witness for defendant, and without any objection whatever they proved by his testimony that he had sold the grain to Walker & Huyck, elevatormen. This testimony, coming in as it did without objection, is, we think, fatal to plaintiff’s recovery. The petition is therefore denied.
All concur.