66 S.W. 447 | Tex. | 1902
Lead Opinion
Under an act passed in 1889, now article 2369, Sayles' Statutes, it was provided that "all sales of real estate made in this State under powers conferred by any deed of trust or other contract lien shall be made in the county in which such real estate is situated," and that "notice shall be given as now required *235 in judicial sales." That law has not been changed or amended. At the time the law in question was enacted, the law as to judicial sales did not require the service of a notice of sale on the defendant in execution, and no such requirement existed until 1895, when the present law was enacted. The law as to sales under trust deeds was not changed to conform to the requirements of the amendment of 1895, and the requirements of the law as to judicial sales as it existed in 1889 must be looked to in ascertaining the notice that should be given of a sale under a trust deed. Had the language of the Act of 1889 been "notice shall be given as required in judicial sales," the statute as to judicial sales in effect at the time of sale under the trust deed would prescribe the method of giving notice, but the language confines the notice to such as is "now required," that is, at the time of the enactment of the law. It can not be maintained that there was a re-enactment of this law by the adoption of the Revised Civil Statutes in 1895, for in the act adopting them it is provided "that the provisions of the Revised Statutes so far as they are substantially the same as the statutes of this State in force at the time when the Revised Statutes shall go into effect, or the common law in force in this State at said time, shall be construed as continuations thereof, and not as new enactments of the same."
Addendum
We are of opinion, however, that the word "now" occurring in article 2369 should be read and given its meaning in the light of the context and the apparent purpose of the Legislature as gathered from the entire article, which is as follows:
"All sales of real estate made in this State under powers conferred by any deed of trust or other contract lien shall be made in the county in which such real estate is situated. Notice shall be given as now required in judicial sales, and such sale shall be made at public vendue between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. of the first Tuesday in any month; provided, that when such real estate is situated in an unorganized county such sale shall be made in the county to which such unorganized county is attached for judicial purposes, and where such real estate is situated in two or more counties, the sale may be made in any county where any part of the real estate is situated after noticeas required in judicial sales has been given in every county in which any part of such real estate is situated."
Looking to the evil to be remedied and the entire context, we think it fairly appears that the word "now" was not intended to have the significance sought to be given it by appellee, and that the evident purpose of the Legislature was to bring all sales under powers within the control of the laws governing judicial sales in force at the time of the execution of the power. The article applicable to judicial sales in force at the date of the passage of article 2369, supra, has been repealed and is superseded by article 2366. The life of the article in force at the *236 date of the enactment of article 2369 can not be preserved by the mere presence of the word "now." The other article was on a different subject and was in no sense written into article 2369. The old article having been repealed, might become a forgotten law, and it is unreasonable to suppose the Legislature intended that parties making deeds of trust should through all subsequent time bear in mind the provisions of a repealed article not in terms bearing either directly or remotely on the subject of sales under powers. The law of judicial sales in force at the date of the passage of article 2369 is not brought forward in the Revised Code of 1895, and is not now in force for any purpose. We think the maker of the trust deed must be held to have had in mind the law of judicial sales when he made the instrument, and intended that the acts of the trustee should be governed by the law of judicial sales concurrent with the instrument.
Addendum
The Court of Civil Appeals for the First Supreme Judicial District have certified to this court for decision the following questions:
"In this cause now pending before us on appeal, we rendered judgment on the 28th day of November, 1901, reversing the judgment of the trial court and remanding the cause. Since this action on the part of this court, our attention has been called to the fact that in reversing the judgment we announced a holding in direct conflict with an opinion rendered by Associate Justice FLY, of the Court of Civil Appeals at San Antonio, in the case of Swain and wife v. Mitchell, reported in volume 3 of the Texas Court Reporter, page 408. At the time we considered and decided the cause, the case cited had not been reported and was not otherwise called to our attention. Inasmuch as no motion for rehearing has been filed in this cause, we have this day set aside the judgment on our own motion and now certify the point of conflict for your decision. We set aside our judgment, not because we believe it erroneous, but because, in the absence of a motion for rehearing, we consider that course the correct practice. We adhere to our holding and do not concur in the ruling announced by the Court of Civil Appeals of the Third [Fourth] District in the case cited, supra. In so far as necessary to disclose the point of conflict, the nature of the suit and the facts as disclosed by the record are stated as follows:
"This was a suit in trespass to try title brought by appellee, J.H. Simon, to recover of F. Fischer and his wife, M. Fischer, about 6 1/2 acres of land in the city of Brenham, Washington County, Texas.
"Appellants answered by plea of not guilty, general denial, and specially that appellee claimed title by purchase made at trustee's sale under a deed of trust with power of sale and that the sale was void because no written notice of the proposed sale was served on him as required by the law governing such sales. Appellants prayed that the sale be declared void and the cloud upon their title be removed.
"A trial before the court without a jury resulted in a judgment in favor of appellee for the land. There is no statement of facts in the record, but the trial court found the facts to be as follows:
"`In January, 1896, defendant F. Fischer and one H. Knittel, now deceased, executed and delivered to V.A. Williams a deed of trust on the land described in plaintiff's petition, in which T.B. Botts was named the trustee, to secure certain indebtedness due by said Fischer to said Williams, evidenced by their promissory note. That thereafter, on August 12, 1898, said Botts as trustee, upon the request of said V.A. Williams, duly advertised said land for sale for the time and in the manner required by law, as provided in article 2369, Revised Statutes, 1895, and sold same at public auction at the courthouse door *239 in Brenham, Washington County, Texas, on the first Tuesday in September, 1899, at which sale the plaintiff became the purchaser for a valuable consideration of $320 paid by him to said trustee, and received from him a deed to said land. That said Fischer had oral notice of said sale, but no written notice was served on him, and his attorney gave notice at the sale that it had not been served on him.
"`Both parties claimed under a common source by agreement in open court.'
"The statutes in force governing judicial sales at the date of the original enactment of article 2369 did not require written notice to the execution debtor. The law in force at the time the sale in question was made required that in judicial sales the defendant should have written notice in addition to the published notice required by law.
"We reversed the judgment on the ground that the failure of the trustee to serve written notice of sale on Fischer as required by the law of judicial sales in force at the date of the deed of trust and date of sale rendered the sale void. In so concluding, we held that under the provisions of Revised Statutes, article 2369, the law of judicial sales in force at the date of the trust deed and of the sale should have controlled the trustee.
"The Court of Civil Appeals of the Fourth District has held on a similar state of facts that the law is otherwise.
"We also respectfully certify for your decision this question:
"Was the failure of the trustee to serve upon the debtor written notice of the contemplated sale such a departure from his power as conferred and restricted by the trust deed or such an irregularity as to render void the sale by the trustee?"
The decision of the question depends upon the proper construction of article 2369 of the Revised Statutes of 1895, which, in so far as it bears upon the point, reads as follows: "All sales of real estate made in this State under powers conferred by any deed of trust or other contract lien shall be made in the county in which such real estate is situated. Notice shall be given as now required in judicial sales, and such sales shall be made at public vendue between the hours of 10 o'clock a.m. and 4 o'clock p.m. of the first Tuesday in any month," etc. This provision first became a law by an act of the Twenty-first Legislature, approved March 21, 1889 (Laws 1889, page 143), and is incorporated in the Revised Statutes in precisely the same language. The question is: Does the word "now" refer to the time at which the Revised Statutes went into effect, or to the time at which the original act became a law; and this depends in a measure upon the further question, whether it was the intention of the Legislature which enacted the Revised Statutes to make them a mere compilation of the laws then existing or to incorporate in the revision, by changes and amendments, new legislation. This is not an open question in this court. The point came before us for consideration in the case of the Hartford *240
Fire Insurance Company v. Walker (2 Texas Court Reporter, 242;
We conclude that personal notice to the mortgagor was not a prerequisite to a valid sale, and therefore answer the question in the negative.
