FROM THE County Court at Law OF Wise COUNTY
Appellant owned a one-half interest in Discount Industrial Coating, Inc., (the company), a polyurethane coating operation.  The company's mobile polyurethane machine (the machine) was not in working order, but the appellee informed the appellant that he was interested in purchasing the machine if he could repair it. After the appellee purchased and installed parts to repair the machine, the appellant moved it and did not disclose its location. The appellee sued the appellant in the justice court for conversion and money had and received claims, obtaining a default judgment for $4,457 against the appellant individually. The appellant appealed to the county court at law.  Appellant and the company moved for summary judgment on appellee’s conversion and money had and received claims. The county court at law denied summary judgment on the conversion claim but granted summary judgment on the money had and received claim. After hearing the testimony from the parties, the county court at law signed a judgment for the appellee in the amount of $4,561.52 in damages. The appellate court overruled the appellant’s first issue challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to show that a conversion took place, finding the weight of the evidence, including appellant's substantial delay in revealing the location of the machine, which caused the replacement parts to be considered a loss, was not so weak that the answer should be set aside and a new trial ordered.  Also, since appellant did not introduce controverting evidence of the actual or fair market value of the parts, the credible evidence supporting the trial court’s $4,561.52 damages finding was not so weak that the answer should be set aside and a new trial ordered. Thus, the court overruled the portion of the appellant’s second issue challenging the factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the damages award. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.