337 S.W.2d 203 (Tex.Civ.App.
|Citation:||337 S.W.2d 203|
|Party Name:||TEXAS FARM PRODUCTS COMPANY, Appellant, v. BURRUS FEED MILLS, INC., d/b/a Burrus Feed Mills, Appellee.|
|Case Date:||June 03, 1960|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Texas, Court of Civil Appeals of Texas|
Rehearing Denied July 1, 1960.
S. M. Adams, Jr., Nacogdoches, for appellant.
Matthews & Sligh, Dallas, for appellee.
DIXON, Chief Justice.
Appellant Texas Farm Products Company, a corporation, has appealed from a judgment holding that a chattel mortgage lien owned by appellee Burrus Feed Mills, Inc., on a flock of chickens is prior and superior to a chattel mortgage lien claimed by appellant.
On March 16, 1957 William A. Purgahn, of San Augustine County, Texas, purchased two thousand 'Day Old Trapnest Pullets' from Ward's Feed Store for a consideration of $720. The purchase was financed by appellee Burrus Feed Mills. In payment Purgahn executed his purchase price note and chattel mortgage to Ward's Feed Store, which note and mortgage were transferred to appellee and filed for record in San Augustine County, Texas, on the day of the purchase, March 26, 1957. Thereafter Purgahn made twenty-five purchases of feed, which purchases were also financed by appellee and for which Purgahn signed purchase notes, thereby running up the principal amount of his indebtedness
to appellee to about $2,900. After allowing credits there was about $2,284 due at the time of trial.
The chattel mortgage executed by Purgahn contains this description of the property mortgaged:
'All of the chickens, and the increase thereof, owned by the mortgagor or which may hereafter during the existence of the indebtedness be owned by the mortgagor, said chickens being located or to be located on the farm, commonly known as the Purgahn Farm located 13 miles South from the town of San Augustine, on F M-705 in the County of San Augustine, State of Texas, which farm is more fully described as follows: 150 acres Farm Land.'
Subsequently, some time in the early part of 1958, Purgahn bought three thousand 'Babcock Bessie Pullets' from DeWitt Hatcheries in Nacogdoches, Texas, executing an unsecured note for the purchase price. Thereafter, in order to obtain feed, he executed a note and mortgage in the amount of $6,000, payable April 15, 1959 to appellant Texas Farm Products Company. This mortgage contains the following description of the property in question:
'3,000 Babcock Bessie Pullets to be paid for under condition 1 as described in Laying Flock Agreement dated April 15, 1958'.
At the time he executed the $6,000 note and mortgage Purgahn was not indebted to appellant in any amount. The note was to cover future purchases of feed, which at the time of trial amounted to about $900.
Meantime Purgahn had quit paying on his indebtedness to appellee Burrus Feed Mills. Appellee's credit man visited the Purgahn farm in June 1958, having heard that Purgahn had acquired additional chickens. The additional chickens at that time were about eight weeks old.
Soon thereafter appellee filed suit against Purgahn for $2,899.91 including interest and attorney's fees, and against Purgahn, Texas Farm Products Company and Bobby Hedricks for foreclosure of its chattel mortgage lien against both flocks of chickens. Bobby Hedricks came into the picture in this manner: immediately after citation was served appellant Texas Farm Products Company caused the three thousand 'Babcock Bessie Pullets' to be picked up and transferred from Purgahn's farm to the farm of Bobby Hedricks in Nacogdoches County.
Later a receiver was appointed, the chickens were sold, and the money from the sale is now being held in the treasury of the court.
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff Burrus Feed Mills against Purgahn for $2,956.19, and against all defendants for foreclosure of its chattel mortgage lien on all of the chickens. The judgment also provides that the money held in court should be first applied to payment of Purgahn's indebtedness to Burris Feed Mills.
In its only point on appeal appellant Texas Farm Products Company says that appellee's chattel mortgage is not sufficiently definite to fix a lien on the second flock of chickens.
It will be observed that appellee's chattel mortgage provides that the lien shall cover the flock of chickens then owned by Purgahn and also chickens 'which may hereafter during the existence of the indebtedness be owned by the mortgagor'. Appellant argues that the latter...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP