V.M.C. Products, Inc. v. Henry

(After stating the foregoing facts.) In their amended motion for a new trial, the defendants contend that the judgment was contrary to the law and evidence, in that: (1) the plaintiff testified that he knew about the sale of his accessories by the sheriff after the sale was held but before asking McCullough for the accessories; (2) the plaintiff’s property in the defendants’ possession was seized under a lien of superior dignity to the plaintiff’s lien, and compliance with the forthcoming bond was thereby rendered impossible; (3) the court made the legality of the levy the issue in the case…