91 Tex. 44 | Tex. | 1897
The findings of fact by the Court of Civil Appeals show, among other things not necessary to state, the following facts: (1) As a result of certain transactions between A. A. and W. L. Brown, the details of which are not necessary to state, the former on the 26th day of February, 1892, was the owner of a certain vendor’s lien note for §2000, executed to him on that date by the latter, secured by lien upon certain lots in Wichita County, Texas, conveyed by the former to the latter, for which said §2000 was part purchase money, the deed conveying same and reserving the lien being duly recorded in said county; (2)'that on the 29th day of April, 1892, A. A. Brown by instrument in writing duly executed, transferred and delivered said note and all his interest in the land upon which the same was secured to Luzenberg and others for value received, said note being at the time of such transfer endorsed <6A. A. Brown;” (3) that on April 30th, 1892, said ‘‘Luzenberg and others” transferred and endorsed said note to Mrs. Ida II. Brackett as collateral security for a note executed by them to her for money that day loaned to them by her; (4) that on the 19th day of July, 1893, W. L. Brown by deed duly executed, conveyed to A. A. Brown lots 6, 9, 12 and 15, and the south half of 11 and 14,
This suit was brought by Ida H. Brackett to recover judgment against said “Luzenberg and others” upon the principal note executed by them to her and also to recover judgment upon said note executed by W. L. to A. A. Brown held by her as collateral, and for a foreclosure of the vendor’s lien upon all the land described in the deed from A. A. to W. L. Brown as against all the parties to this suit, she claiming such lien
The Association answered setting up its said note and trust deed and claiming that the lien thereof is superior to that of the collateral note held by Ida H. Brackett, for the reason that it acquired its lien without any notice of the lien or claim evidenced by such note held by Ida H. Brackett as collateral. The court below and Court of Civil Apj>eals having both sustained the contention of Ida H. Brackett and overruled that of the Building and Loan Association, the latter has brought the case to this court upon writ of error assigning, among various other things not necessary to mention, that said courts erred in holding that its lien is not superior.
In order to determine whether the Loan Association is entitled to protection as being without notice of the fact that A. A. Brown had transferred the note held by Mrs. Brackett, we must view the whole matter from its standpoint at the time its loan was made. It found, (1) A. A. Brown had conveyed the land to W. L. Brown by deed reserving a lien to secure a note -for $2000, part purchase money; (2) that W. L. Brown had reconvened to A. A. Brown, which fact would prima facie extinguish the lien; (3) A. A. Brown, who was fraudulently attempting to induce it to loan him money on the land, concealed from it the fact that he had transferred the note to Luzenberg and others, and Mrs. Brackett’s failure to record such transfer paved the way for Brown to completely mislead it, when it proceeded to inquire of him about the $2000 note, by producing the duplicate of same subject to his control. Under these circumstances as they then appeared to the Association it would seem that, when A. A. Brown executed the trust deed upon the land securing the loan and procured the assignment of the duplicate note (which the Association supposed to be the original) to further secure same, everything had been done necessary to fix a first lien on the land, for every title to and claim thereon, as far as the record showed, had been brought in and made subject thereto. The fact that the duplicate note when produced contained the endorsement above set out, to the effect that it was executed for the accommodation of A. A. Brown and that W. L. Brown was not liable thereon, did not indicate that it was not in fact the original lien note referred to and secured in the deed from A. A. to W. L. Brown, nor did it tend to raise any' doubt as to A. A. Brown’s power to give a first lien on the land to the Loan Association; for if every fact stated in the papers thus presented by A. A. Brown to the Loan Association were true, the legal results would follow, (1) that, by the execution of the note thus endorsed and the deed from A. A. to W. L. Brown, both of which the Loan Association believed to have been executed at the same time as they purported to have been, a lien was thereby created upon the land to secure the note in favor of any future holder thereof, it being immaterial whether it was, as termed by the. parties, a vendor’s lien, or not; and (2) that A. A. Brown having secured a reconveyance of the land from W. L. Brown
We are therefore of opinion, that, under the facts found by the Court of Civil Appeals, the lien fixed by the trust deed is superior to that of the collateral note held by Mrs. Brackett, and that that court and the trial court erred in holding otherwise, for which their judgments, in so far as they failed to fix the lien secured by the trust deed on the land embraced therein as superior to that of the note held by Mrs. Brackett as collateral, are reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial, but in all other respects their judgments are affirmed.
It will be observed that we place our decision upon the ground that the lien of the Loan Association is based upon the trust deed securing money then loaned, the duplicate note having been transferred as additional security, and not upon a mere purchase of the duplicate note. We express no opinion as to what would be its rights were it merely a holder of such note, as that case is not before us.
Affirmed, in part.
Reversed and remanded in part.