Farmer v. Evans
| Decision Date | 22 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | (No. 2966.) |
| Citation | 233 S.W. 101 |
| Parties | FARMER v. EVANS. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by J. L. Evans against Ben F. Farmer and another. A judgment for plaintiff against the defendant named was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals (192 S. W. 342), and the case certified to the Supreme Court for answer to a certified question. Question answered in favor of defendant.
H. L. Adkins, of Higgins, for appellant.
Hoover & Dial, of Canadian, for appellee.
The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals for the Seventh District in this case is reported in 192 S. W. 342, and the facts briefly are as follows:
In Harper county, Okl., one R. W. Warren executed and delivered to appellee, Evans, his certain promissory note secured by a chattel mortgage on six head of live stock. Said mortgage was executed in Harper county, Okl., where both parties lived and where the property was situated. Appellee had said chattel mortgage registered in Harper county as required by the law of Oklahoma, to give notice to subsequent purchasers. Thereafter said Warren brought two black mules, being a part of the live stock covered by the mortgage, into Lipscomb county, Tex., and sold them to appellant, Ben F. Farmer, without the knowledge or consent of appellee. Some months afterwards Farmer sold the mules to F. F. Schick. No record of the mortgage was made in Texas. Appellee brought suit in Lipscomb county to recover the balance due on his note and to foreclose his mortgage on the mules as against Farmer and Schick in satisfaction of said balance.
It appears that appellant, Farmer, was an innocent purchaser without notice, but that he bought the mules within about a month after they had been brought out of Oklahoma into Lipscomb county by said Warren. The trial court held that appellee, Evans, was not negligent in not having filed his mortgage of record in Lipscomb county before appellant, Farmer, purchased the mules, but that he was negligent in not having filed his mortgage for record in Lipscomb county prior to the purchase by defendant Schick. It denied recovery as against Schick, but held that appellee under the rule of comity between states was entitled to recover as against appellant, Farmer. Appellant, Farmer, prosecuted his appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Seventh Supreme Judicial District, and that court reversed and rendered the case in his favor,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metro-Plan, Inc. v. Kotcher-Turner, Inc.
...the mortgage has not been recorded in the second State.’ The minority principle finds recognition today only in Texas (Farmer v. Evans, 111 Tex. 283, 233 S.W. 101;General Motors Accept. Corp. v. Fowler, Tex.Civ.App., 36 S.W.2d 589) and Pennsylvania (see Kauffman & Baer v. Monroe Motor Line,......
-
Hart v. Oliver Farm Equip. Sales Co.
...as against subsequent bona fide purchasers, (Consolidated Garage Co. v. Chambers, 111 Tex. 293, 231 S. W. 1072, 1073; Farmer v. Evans, 111 Tex. 283, 233 S. W. 101), and probably as against mere attachment creditors, otherwise unsecured, as in the case at bar. See Trans-Continental Freight C......
-
American Surety Co. of New York v. Bay City Cattle Co.
...v. Chambers, 111 Tex. 293, 231 S. W. 1072; Willys-Overland Co. v. Chapman (El Paso Court of Civil Appeals) 206 S. W. 978; Farmer v. Evans, 111 Tex. 283, 233 S. W. 101; Harling v. Creech, 88 Tex. 300, 31 S. W. 357; Parlin & Orendorff v. Davis (Tex. Civ. App.) 74 S. W. (2) The trial court's s......
-
Union Securities Co. v. Adams
...v. Huston, 1 Tex. 203; Best v. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 141 S.W. 334; Farmer v. Evans, (Tex. Civ. App.), 192 S.W. 342; Farmer v. Evans (111 Tex. 283) 233 S.W. 101; Consolidated Garage Co. v. Chambers, (111 Tex. 231 S.W. 1072; Willys-Overland Co. v. Chapman, (Tex. Civ. App.) 206 S.W. 978. And ......