Court Opinion

ID: 9827931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:56:31.373372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:39.539870
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
For the first time, complaint is made-in appellees’ motion for a rehearing that it is unjust and inequitable to award appellant possession of the automobile and at the same time allow him to retain the $400 paid him by McCallon.
No pleading was interposed below questioning appellant's retention of the money if he were awarded, the automobile. There-was no prayer that, in the event appellant recovered the car, he should be required to-pay Langston the $400. Since no such issue-was made by appellees so as to afford appellant an opportunity to meet.it and show, if he could, that the payment ought to be offset by the use and deterioration. of the car, as well as decline in its market value, we do not think appellees now are in a position to-make this contention for the first time on motion for a rehearing.
The motion is overruled.