Court Opinion

ID: 9826756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 16:33:59.004039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:14.203013
License: Public Domain

On Petition for .Rehearing.
This case is again before us on petition for a rehearing and additional findings of fact. After an examination of the record and consideration of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petition must be denied. As stated in our original opinion, the automobile was damaged in a collision on January 27, 1932, and was hauled into the Range Motor Company’s garage by some of the employees of that company. Later Brooks and Patterson, who owned the automobile that collided Avith the car in question, made an agreement that Patterson would have the Brooks car repaired, but he objected to having the Range Motor Company do the work, as he stated that they charged too much. On January 28th Brooks gave Patterson an order to the Range Motor Company for the car, but that company refused to deliver possession to Patterson unless Brooks would pay the hauling charges and also pay the past-due installments under the conditional sale contract. This Avas reported to Brooks, who went in person to the Range Motor Company’s garage, and he was informed by Mr. Bennett of that company that he could not have the car unless the charges and past-due installments were paid, and Brooks was unable to make the payments. He turned over the key to the Range Motor Company and Avas told that he would be given until February 16th to make said payments, to which he consented, and the car Avas held until February 16th, AA'hen it Avas advertised and sold under the conditional sale contract on account of the default in payment of the purchase price, as set out in our original opinion. Hence there was no conversion of the car (Hunt v. Stockell Motor Car Co., 165 Tenn., 641, 57 S. W. (2d), 448), and the petition for a rehearing must be denied.
Faw, P. J., and DeWitt, J., concur.