Eichman v. Highland Park State Bank
| Decision Date | 24 February 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 3587,3587 |
| Citation | 345 S.W.2d 352 |
| Parties | F. F. ELCHMAN et al., Appellants, v. HIGHLAND PARK STATE BANK, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Levey & Goldstein, M. M. Pena, Jr., San Antonio, for appellants.
George F. Manning, San Antonio, for appellee.
Highland Park State Bank filed suit against F. F. Eichman, Ralph Mendez and Jose Valdez for a deficiency judgment after a chattel mortgage foreclosure sale on some dry cleaning equipment, hereinafter referred to as Sickel Cleaners. The court rendered judgment non obstante veredicto for the bank for $9,536.18.
The defendants have appealed from such judgment contending the court erred in granting said judgment. The parties agree that the only question involved on this appeal is whether or not there was any evidence of probative value to support the jury's finding that the foreclosure sale was not conducted fairly. We find no such evidence and affirm the judgment.
The chattel mortgage provided, upon default, the bank had the right to sell the security at private sale without notice or at public sale in the manner prescribed by law.
The evidence shows without dispute the following: that F. F. Eichman, Ralph Mendez and Jose Valdez executed a note for $13,825 to Highland Park State Bank, payable in monthly installments of $200 each, secured by a chattel mortgage lien on Sickel Cleaners; that the February 1, 1956, installment was not paid; that on March 13, 1956, the bank wrote the makers of the note a letter reminding them of the amount due and advising them the note would be turned over to an attorney for collection unless it received their attention; that the makers of the note permitted same to be placed in the hands of the bank's attorney, who posted notice on April 10, 1956, and all of the makers of the note were notified of the time and place of the sale; that on April 23, 1956, Mr. Eichman requested, in writing, that the bank postpone the foreclosure sale and give him more time to raise the money and the bank agreed to such postponement; that in said letter to the bank, Eichman asserted: ; that Mendez and Valdez had notice that the sale had been postponed;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maxey v. Texas Commerce Bank of Lubbock
...a private sale is made under a mortgage, the sale must in all respects be fairly conducted. Eichman v. Highland Park State Bank, 345 S.W.2d 352, 354 (Tex.Civ.App. Eastland 1961, writ ref'd). A chattel mortgagee who buys the collateral at a private sale has adverse interests his fiduciary du......
-
Kolbo v. Blair
...and upon slight proof of unfair conduct or violation of the powers given by the instrument, they will be set aside. Eichman v. Highland Park State Bank, 345 S.W.2d 352 (Tex.Civ.App., 1961, wr. ref.); Campbell v. Eastern Seed & Grain Co., 109 S.W.2d 997 (Tex.Civ.App., 1937, n. w. h.); Associ......
-
Maxey v. Citizens Nat. Bank of Lubbock
...v. Southwestern Investment Company, 430 S.W.2d 465 (Tex. 1968, on remand Tex.Civ.App., 443 S.W.2d 573); Eichman v. Highland Park State Bank, 345 S.W.2d 352 (Tex.Civ.App.1961, writ ref'd); Kolbo v. Blair, 379 S.W.2d 125 (Tex.Civ.App.1964, writ ref'd A distinction between the duties owed by a......
-
Hill v. General Elec. Credit Corp.
...1954, writ ref'd); 37 Tex.Jur.2d, Limitations of Actions, § 19. The judgment is affirmed. 1 See Eichman v. Highland Park State Bank, 345 S.W.2d 352 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1961, writ ref'd).2 Great Am. Reserve Ins. Co. v. San Antonio Plumbing Supply Co., 391 S.W.2d 41, 47 ...