Bellah v. Dennis
| Decision Date | 05 May 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 2065-6865.,2065-6865. |
| Citation | 104 S.W.2d 490 |
| Parties | BELLAH v. DENNIS. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Plaintiff in error, Bellah, filed suit on a promissory note for the principal sum of $300, and for the foreclosure of a vendor's lien securing same upon a tract of land in the town of St. Jo, Montague county. Defendant in error, Dennis, the owner of a deed of trust lien against the land executed several years subsequent to the vendor's lien note, defended, as against Bellah's right to a foreclosure, upon the ground that the vendor's lien was barred by the statute of limitation. In the trial court Bellah was awarded judgment as prayed for. In the Court of Civil Appeals that portion of the judgment awarding him a recovery and foreclosure as against Lewis, who had assumed the note sued upon, was affirmed, but, as to Dennis, the holder of the deed of trust lien, judgment was rendered that Bellah take nothing. 78 S.W. (2d) 653. Bellah's application for writ of error was granted on assignments challenging the correctness of that portion of the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals denying him a foreclosure as against Dennis. No other questions are presented here for decision.
The material facts are as follows: On October 2, 1917, Bellah conveyed the land to Bryant, retaining in his deed a vendor's lien to secure the payment of a note for $300 executed by Bryant in favor of Bellah and due on or before October 1, 1918. On May 6, 1925, Bryant conveyed the property to Lewis and Mann. In the deed of conveyance the Bellah note was correctly described and specifically assumed by Lewis and Mann. On July 27, 1925, Mann conveyed his interest in the property to Lewis and the latter therein assumed and agreed to pay all outstanding indebtedness against the business being conducted by Mann and Lewis. Among other claims assumed was the following: "$300.00 due J. D. Bellah." That deed expressly reserved the vendor's lien. On March 15, 1927, Bellah and Lewis executed an extension agreement which was promptly filed and recorded. By that agreement the maturity of the Bellah note...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burns v. Burns
...recorded, said renewal of the first lien would be binding on the junior lienholder.” (Italics supplied.) Bellah v. Dennis, 129 Tex. 367, 104 S.W.2d 490, and W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Terrell, Tex.CivApp., 171 S.W.2d 198, enunciate the same rule. In Division III of this opinion are other Texas d......
-
Yates v. Darby
...S.W.2d 346; Caffarelli Brothers v. Pearce, Tex.Com.App., 34 S.W.2d 813; Novosad v. Svrcek, 129 Tex. 34, 102 S.W. 2d 393; Bellah v. Dennis, 129 Tex. 367, 104 S.W.2d 490. The important differences between the facts of those cases and the facts of this case are that there was no contract for t......
-
Burns v. Burns
... ... the first lien would be binding on the junior ... lienholder." (Italics supplied.) ... Bellah v ... Dennis, 129 Tex. 367, 104 S.W.2d 490, and W. T. Rawleigh Co ... v. Terrell, Tex.CivApp., 171 S.W.2d 198, enunciate the same ... rule. In ... ...
-
Miller v. Cree
...after the date she assumed their payment. The suit was filed before that time. The notes were not barred by limitation. Bellah v. Dennis, 129 Tex. 367, 104 S.W.2d 490; Richardson v. Hughes, Tex.Civ.App., 146 S.W.2d 255; Rushing v. Hall, Tex.Civ. App., 74 S.W.2d 761, 765; Holcroft v. Wheatle......