Court Opinion

ID: 9833449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:44:00.715304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:03.030342
License: Public Domain

*108On Motion for Rehearing.
The decision of the case is not based upon any lack of evidence to support any of the findings of the jury. It is based, rather, Upon the finding that the Lubys were not guilty-of any fraud, and upon the inconclusiveness of the finding upon the issue of damages. Ap-pellee's first proposition in his motion for rehearing is therefore inapplicable.
Appellee’s second proposition is based upon the assumption that the warehouse receipts were nonnegotiable, and cites article 571, R. S. 1925, in support of the assumption. Article 571, however, is a general statute, whereas article 7825, cited and discussed in the original opinion, is special in its nature, and the provision therein, making such receipts negotiable, controls over the general statute, which relates generally to nonnegotiable instruments under the law merchant. The second proposition is therefore likewise inapplicable.
The motion is overruled.