lessors ment of the that all Tenant, 1017 the lessee perior to the landlord’s but recorded the second ute until after the landlord’s lien had where one who sold serving toed such series of whether it be in the first or tinue for a tract LOW v. TROY LAUNDRY MACHINERY in accordance with this lees ing, assignment, complaining forbid Dalton ed, record reference to the Dalton court in this matter he would not rent the something plains was Aaron on the stand he was asked the one of the tion: rial, out other house owned that such the defendant of the court in tenth Peioeity [Ed. Note.—For other Peioeity Reversed Landlord The We do not far [5] Landloed Under conduct of decreased Rev. contradiction, ; objected objectionable record the contract as cannot be asked a When The July 5, 1913. On Motion for Re- Dec. as the landlord’s lien is tenant, assignment, so full of errors as thirteenth “Did reservations persons leasing Day? (the contractor) Cent. prejudicial. Civ. St. Rev. hearing, testimony appellees “new under longer period eleventh op title Dig. embracing op town, CO., Limited, rent, cause preference E. P. you objection and Tenant because the but that the lien shall not con- into a series of Dig. Liens. testimony Liens. value recall of divides appellees, Did this § remanded. of the trial put 248.*] and article testimony and Mr. assignment Tenant that he told Gill, remanded for a *1 complaining to them. §§ St. you is sustained. sustained, matter, assignment, by appellant to the commencement of that house was Appellant testified, 1003-1008, 1010-1012, the sun.” lien to the character house was sustained. That than the current con- lease contract for a opinion. ever is also of J. M. art. leading question irrelevant, is this to, et on cross-examina build a Hunnicutt (§ 248*) (§ required by see Landlord and among lot is sustained. offered to show art. its lien court is revers- to a Jim al.† following ques 248*) appellees, of 12 appellees sustained. action of up?” Appel- the rent for property in, 5490, giving The twelfth which com one. Hunnicutt, in another tenant, price, Hunnicutt house for was lead providing providing attached, —Rent— —Rent— one who immate seen a reason forbid action of an with Tenant, stat- pay- fail- was su- of and delivered leased said term of 1911, he uated on. No. city serting against the defendants W. and R. each, chattel sold vember, account thereafter fees, in the event of suit —and ment notes, er the further account. The note first ited, recover the amount of 15 suit: appellee. tiff, the defendant named statement appellant. of date ty ; Company, brief prior to the conditional vendor’s lien. others. From a quired lien within article of a contract of conditional sale was a creditor chattels as to creditors unless in [Ed. Note.—For other Appeal Wilkinson & Action KEY, delivered to the be chattel Troy Laundry Machinery Company, $75 John W. payable for rent containing month; of 10 maturing November Dec. Brownwood; other the owner of of chattel some suit was M. each, Chicago, Ill., 1911, respectively, Cent. was sought three C. J. was registered his answer and by from District for 14 Limited, 26, 1911, security property. Miller & fittings, fixtures, Dig. following substantially character of things, Goodwin, J. part payment and ten for $100 mortgages, that J. R. Richie also attempted the nature Dig. the usual years, beginning August 1, September, October, and No its order —one § 248.*] Baugh, payable brought August 14, who were 26, 1911, We mortgages, on said J. writing successive Troy Laundry Machinery J. vendee, foreclosure and his lien for the Richie, and to J. R. §§ against that about that date he additional as Lee, that on Williams, copy and one each month two-story building three others for cases, 1003-1008, 1010-1012, Judge. for, block No. Court, title, claim, or lien annum from cross-bill, alleging, appeals. maturing fell in favor of promissory price defendant R. executed of, R. a landlord whose see Landlord and certain months. These J. R. Richie when July 13, 1911, registered due 10,1911. The of this mort also result of already Walter for each, Brown Coun- LowM. was rented said shall be held the first of appliances upon open void and their to be executed therefore bearing correct recov Ford, notes, plain- as re- paid, open date, Lim pay four him sit- $50 as & Rep'r see oases section NUMBERin Dec. &Am. by Supreme † Writ of error denied Court. *2 LAUNDRY MACHINERY Tes.) TROT LOW v. conducting $600, so, purpose do costs. of M. for of Low’s for pur- pursuant
laundry therein,
to such
September,
day
necessary
pose,
1911,
of
Ail
un-
the
2d
further
to a full
the 1st or
facts
machinery, derstanding
in
above-mentioned
the case will be found
moved the
etc.,
findings
fixtures,
fittings,
said
hereinafter
court’s
set out
and conclusions
laundry;
operate
that J.
proceeded
in
said
full. The motion of defendant R.
to
stipulated
28,
trial,
rent from
for a
R. Richie
inclusive,
January
plaintiff,
August,
to
and that of
month
inclusive,
March,
failed to
were overruled
May,.June,
April,
court both of
months
action of the
said
excepted,
gave
July,’
appeal,
continued
and the
notice
hold, occupy,
upon appeal perfected by
and use case is
said
said lease contract to
here
premises
of the first
defendant.
after
during
part
appealed upon
of said
trial court's
case is
during
say,
findings
the months
that is to
second
of fact and conclusions
October,
August, September,
and Novem-
of
ber,
are as follows:
for the rent on
he became liable
R. Richie or-
That on
of said second
following laundry
for the whole
said
dered of
ma-
say,
in- chinery,
is to
from
No. 11 washers
to wit: Two 36x54
inclusive;
he,
July,
clusive,
defendant,
partition,
trimmed,
galvanized,
with
and sin-
pref-
gle-geared;
galvan-
had a
washer,
entitled to and
one 32x30 No.
machinery, fittings,
angle
fix-
trimmed;
ized,
countershaft;
extractor,
said
erence
one 26"
payment
tures, etc.,
ironer;
2-ehest addition
one
room;
dip-wheel
drying
of all of said rent.
judgment
Said defendant asked
one cabinet
one
stareher;
25-gallon
cooker;
with
starch
one
one
monthly
ironer;
installments No.
18" combined
one No.
4½
due;
thereof,
single-treadle
as the same became
that his
ironer;
shoe-band
one 32"
lien be foreclosed
body;
co-
ironer,
verse
shaper;
one No. 24' show-
shoe
plaintiff,
defendants and
superior
as a
blower;
lien and claim
one 8 horse
one No. 3 root
by them;
power
engine (O. S.);
O,
horizontal
one
satisfy
said
to be sold
decreed
power
gravity
(O.
S.);
horse
boiler
$800, interest,
said debt of
suit.
costs of
necessary fittings
dampener, with all
steam
No answers were filed
the other defend- and connections for installation. That said
by supplemental
ants. The
answer
writing, and, among
in
order was
among
1912,pleaded,
filed December
following stipulations
things, contained the
things, that no landlord’s lien attached to
conditions,
ma-
all of the
to wit: ‘That
property in
favor of defendant M. chinery
property of
ordered shall remain the
Low, because J. R. Richie was not the owner
purchase price
(plaintiff)
the seller
until the
property,
of said
contract
terms of
fully
cash, and,
in
thereof has been
case of
in
him,
between
at the time said
payment
default in the
machinery, fittings, fixtures, etc.,
or-
purchase
price,
the seller
dered, no
was to vest in him
to same
purchaser,
enter
purchase
till he should have
the full
machinery.
and retake
price thereof.
payments
machin-
deferred
judg-
to the court
resulted
ery
ordered
be evidenced
notes of
ment on December
in favor of
by mortgage upon
purchaser,
Low, against
defendant R. M.
machinery
defendant J. such
to be delivered to the seller
$207.30, being
the amount at the time of the
due,
thereon,
of rents
purchaser.’
interest accrued
April, May, June,
July, 1912,
day August, 1911,
That on
26th
additional,
suit,
finding
besides costs of
be-
the first
the
fact was
wood,
in
ing
due,
Chicago
shipped
of rents
amount
to Brown-
come
the whole
to the order of
and at the
contract;
judg-
plaintiff prepared
of said
ment
and also
time
the notes and
plaintiff against
plaintiff’s petition
in favor
J. R.
$1,895,
cause,
lading,
said notes and account for
with in- this
and indorsed
bill of
annum,
lading,
terest at the rate of 6
bill
and forwarded the
and costs of suit. Plaintiff’s chattel mort- with said notes and
and draft for
bankers,
payment
landlord’s lien of defend-
to Ford Bros. &
cash
proper-
foreclosed,
ant R. M. Low were
at
instructions
ty
proceeds
sold,
directed to be
*3
being
wood, Texas,
the
plaintiff by
Richie before the
Low,
the lease contract of the defendant
where said
plaintiff
yet,
having
failed
property
has ever since continued.
have the same forthwith filed for
in Brown
“(3)
immediately
Co.,
That Ford Bros. &
county,
required by law,
as
after the execution of
notes and mort-
the
machinery upon
mortgage
and the
was.
which said
gage by Richie,
which was
placed
plaintiff
returned the same to
at Chi-
building prior
recording
filing
or
cago, Ill.,
mortgage
filed the
mortgage,
Low,
the lien of R. M.
as land-
county
clerk of Brown
as
lord,
thereto,
and is entitled
receipt
directed. That
on
mortgage
plaintiff
over the
mortgage
Chicago,
returned
for the rent due and
current
due for the
to become
same,
and had the same
beginning
year,
1911.
clerk’s office at
“(2)
September
That
landlord’s lien
under the law the
on
1911.
only
ex-
“(4)
under the lease contract
That the notes sued
and describ-
year, beginning August
plaintiff’s
isted for the current
ed in
petition,
and executed
de-
plaintiff having
mortgage,
1,1911,and,
its
fendant
become
tained
unpaid, having
are due and
required
as
provision
reason of the
con-
of the first rental
contract
mortgage,
in the
matured
mortgage attached,
-the lien
created
pay
how
years
cerned,
period
year.
pany’s
time, judgment
commencement
tract,
*4
after,”
As we
pany
and to become due
claim
come
vised
was levied on
App. 128,
language:
appellant. Appellant relies
in the case of Allen v.
for
the
volve
could
May 1, 1902,and,
ended
such
when the tenant
contract,
we
such
far as the landlord’s
court
lant’s
was
not a creditor
ute
Streetman,
lease.
the Revised
that,
give
dividing
think it
did
landlord has
many years
prevent a
subordinate
year.”
for more than one
2. The
due in
has
any question
ruled
lien for
for more than one
not
that
It
understand,
etc.
into
not
the landlord
because
does
lien.
May
to the end
a series of
“The other contention of
assert a lien for
purview article
subsequently
therefore that
contain
speaking
those
company was,
a series of
correctly
As
Troy
correctly construes the
lien can
S. W.
for that
court
lease contract for a series of
landlord
the rent for the second
Statutes to
should
of the second
originally
cross-assignments
future;
was recorded
the current
so far as the lien is con-
has
a lien for the balance
assignments
case, however,
Laundry Machinery
prevent
the effect
and as the
construed the
a
lien is
have,
yearly
occupied
and therefore
Brunner,
proviso,
from ever
rent was
lien for all rent due
covered
added
year;
holding
where Mr.
that
purview of
entire
enacted
be enforced for a
been
court,
series of
contracts,
5654of
to the statute
but it divides-
is,
presents
and was held
laundry
making
rendered
83
the landlord
paid
article 3251
term of the
this article
that
attachment
asserting
did not
time after
ho
liens;
company’s
the rental
this view.
used this
this stat-
Tex.
appellant
Low was
the trial
the con-
proviso within the
the Re-
proviso
Justice
to that
matter
article
to the
years,
appel-
in so
Com
com-
of a
Civ.
but
the up
in-
a
1. find
Insurance
main,
tion
Manufacturing Co.
tects
liens.
cussed with
although
tion.
v.
we
that it
far
tioned,
heretofore
in our former
rehearing
ber
controvert
that
prior
superior
FIDELITY
landlord
that
ease
party
opinion upon
tended to
rule the
tober 1st in
and on October
mium,
at which time
essary
ceiving
Deduction
Motion overruled.
No reversible
Welch,
accept
judgment is affirmed.
no
75 S. W.
the landlord
a
creditors
been
to the
Rogers Grigg,
January 1,
carrying
questions
life
we
In
ADELPHIA,
Allen v.
landlord’s lien which has
cross-assignments under considera
that
to the
receipt,
not
have been
its doctrine
made. We
a
dicta,
are
insurance
an attachment
annual
MUT. LIFE INS.
has been followed in other
Tex.
Insured
Motion for
expressed
decision of the
sound, and,
op Unpaid
considerable
v.
that
question may
for not
Amount
(§ 523*) fact that
opinion
aware,
opinion
year for 20
error
presented
Brunner, 33
we are not
stating
Civ.
such a lien
lien,
premiums on
did
policy
of the statute which
liens. The
paid
policy
Lewis,
PA.,
adhering
App. 526,
an annual
—
reconsidered,
has
correct the statement
to the effect
been
a landlord’s
unrecorded contract
Rehearing.
Thereafter and until
one annual
Premiums.
S. W.
of a
correct,
involve
case
may have, in
in the motion for
appellant
v. ZAPP
lien,
elaboration, and,
have been unnec
prepared
it has
heretofore
January 1, 1897,
Notes
failure to one of precedence and took over the landlord’s lien them. That said notes contain the usual accruing rent after the first rental ‘attorney’s clause, fee and were contract attorneys plaintiff in the hands of plaintiff under should have the “I therefore find for they debt contract with them that against .Richie, sued its foreclose therein on for as described in said fees. “(5) to the lien of R. That the aforesaid also con- landlord, him as tained a for the balance due that it should also stand beginning year, rents on the rental contract further indebtedness on August 1, the the execution and that after “I find for defendant R. M. the sum Low the Model Laundry with interest from date same was Company, under which name the the balance of rent due for the first rental business, Richie conducted said year, plaintiff contract sum, giving by open and foreclose his lien indebted for said account in the alleged plaintiff’s it over the peti- plaintiff. past lien of I also find for defendant said indebtedness is unpaid, Low $600, being defendant Richie the sum of is secured plaintiff’s petition. rent due for the second contract “(6) year, That on or rental and establish about de- against bill, fendant R. M. Low entered his cross- into a written same, subject, lease how- and foreclose the defendant whereby plaintiff’s ever, leased to the said Richie for a lien hereinbefore foreclos- years, beginning August term of three ed. I find that said liens should two-story building, stone both as and defendant situated foreclosed the southeast side Center all other this suit Low as county, Texas, being petition plaintiff’s Brown and defendant named 31, city street No. block of Low’s cross-bill.” Opinion. Richie was to month, at the rate of $50 beginning day August, on the 1st Appellant [1] 1. Low that his Richie landlord’s lien August 1, 1911, about Rich- laundry company’s $50, being to M. ie Low rent for mortgage lien, owing for the rent and took the first owing but for building. of the rented for the second rents and bases That all rent on contention article 5490 of the Re including M. Low to and the month of vised lows: which reads as fol March, 1912,monthly, persons as it leasing accrued. “All “(9) That the rental residence, contract between building, storehouse or other and Richie record, never filed for have of the tenant all the knowledge had no actual notice or residence, storehouse of the rental Richie. contract between Low and or due; pro- rents due and that become Tex.) LIFE INS. FIDELITY MUT. CO. ZAPP not continue or be intended al force riod to oning or tract. Such lien shall vided, tlie lien rented embrace than premises, long whether the same as the tenant shall beginning for rents term ‘current contract and for one month there- enforced for a twelve continue to' become due lease or rental con- lease or rent- in the occupy and be in longer pe- year,’ reck- first reason of the Counsel for the argument first which undertake to define a declares ence 81 Tex. construed, that a landlord shall Low is and in Furniture Co. appellant, quoting statute, 16 W. was not entitled to S. is there statute, creditor. The statute expressly amake proposition that statute is from decisions v. Hotel spirit plausible declared priority, prefer