Claes v. Dallas Homestead & Loan Ass'n.
| Decision Date | 19 January 1892 |
| Citation | 18 S.W. 421 |
| Parties | CLAES <I>et al.</I> v. DALLAS HOMESTEAD & LOAN ASS'N. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by the Dallas Homestead & Loan Association against Claes & Lehnbenter and J. W. Thompson to foreclose a mechanic's lien. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Thompson & Clint, for appellants. Lawther & Holloway, for appellee.
On the 18th day of October, 1886, Frank Morton and his wife, Catharine, made a written contract with the Dallas Loan & Homestead Association, by which the association was to build for them a dwelling-house on lots 6 and 7 in block B of a certain addition to the city of Dallas, and by which Morton and wife gave to the association a mechanic's lien on the building and the lots. The contract is in the peculiar and complicated form adopted by such association, — Morton first executing to the association his bond acknowledging his indebtedness to the same in the sum of $1,000; agreeing to pay interest, dues as a member of the concern, and fines in certain cases; granting a lien on his shares of stock in the business, and a lien upon the lots above mentioned; he and his wife executing a written lien to the association on the lots and building to be erected, recognizing the bond of Morton, and his obligations therein. The real terms of the transaction are obscured, or at least are not stated in a straightforward manner. The contract seems to contemplate a loan of money to Morton, a small portion of which is to be paid at once, and the rest in the future; but it may be inferred from the instrument that the house was to be built with the money furnished by the association, or that it was to furnish all the material for the construction and completion of the same, and to have all the labor done at its individual expense. This contract was duly signed and acknowledged by all the parties, — by Mrs. Morton, in the manner required by statute of a married woman in conveying the homestead, — and was duly recorded in the proper record of the county on the day of its execution, — the 18th day of October, 1886. The building of the house was on the same day let to one John Paul, who with Morton executed a bond to the association in the sum of $2,000, conditioned that Paul will build the house according to certain specifications, furnishing all the material. Morton on the trial testified that the association had complied in all respects with its contract by the erection of the house, and that he still owed it for the same. It was proved that the amount due was $794; that the association had advanced $1,000 in compliance with their agreement, $200 of which were paid on the 25th day of October, 1886, and $800 about the middle of November, 1886. The evidence does not show positively whether the money was paid to Morton or direct to Paul. Enough was shown to establish the alleged lien and the performance of the contract. On the 22d day of October, 1886 Morton and his wife executed to Claes & Lehnbenter, the appellants, their note for $1,200, due in 6 years, bearing 6 per cent. interest per annum from date; the note reciting, "said amount being the money of Claes & Lehnbenter, used in the purchase and improvement of lots 6 & 7, in block B," — the same lots on which the loan association had agreed to erect the dwelling. On the same day Morton and wife executed to J. W. Thompson a deed of trust on the lots to secure the note of Claes & Lehnbenter, with power to sell the lots on default of payment of the note at maturity, etc. The deed of trust makes no mention of that portion of the note quoted above, or on what account the money was due. It was duly acknowledged by Morton and wife, and on the 25th day of October, 1886, was recorded in the proper record. This suit was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oil Field Salvage Co. v. Simon
...were filed within four months after the materials were furnished, and same met the requirements of the law. Claes v. Dallas Homestead & Loan Ass'n, 83 Tex. 50, 18 S.W. 421. In the case of Ball v. Davis, 118 Tex. 534, 18 S.W.2d 1063, it was held that the affidavit and claim must contain the ......
-
Lippencott v. York
...for labor and material used in making improvements on land: Martin v. Roberts, 57 Tex. 568; Taylor v. Huck, 65 Tex. 241; Claes v. Loan Ass'n, 83 Tex. 53, 18 S. W. 421; Mundine v. Berwin, 62 Tex. 343. This is now held to be correct. There is nothing in the views expressed in Cameron v. Marsh......
-
Van Horn Trading Co. v. Day
...fixed in the statute is mandatory. Cameron v. Marshall, 65 Tex. 7; Lippencott v. York, 86 Tex. 276, 24 S. W. 275; Claes v. Loan Association, 83 Tex. 50, 18 S. W. 421. While it is alleged that Darsey was a contractor, the account clearly shows that he was only a day laborer, and consequently......
-
Vinson v. Whitfield
...she acknowledged the existence and validity thereof. Certainly the language does not show an express lien. As said in Claes v. Loan Association, 83 Tex. 50, 18 S. W. 421, "the language in the note `said amount being the money of Claes and Lehnbenter, used in the purchase and improvement of ......