Glasscock v. Price

• Decision Date: 21 November 1898
• Citation: 47 S.W. 965
• Parties: GLASSCOCK v. PRICE et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

47 S.W. 965

GLASSCOCK v. PRICE et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

November 21, 1898.

Error to court of civil appeals of Third supreme judicial district.

Action by Annie E. Price against M. P. Kelley and others to foreclose a vendor's lien. From a judgment of the court of civil appeals (45 S. W. 415) affirming a judgment of the district court for plaintiff, and holding the lien of the defendants Allen & Craig superior to that of defendant George W. Glasscock, the latter brings error. Judgment reformed so as to make the judgment lien of plaintiff in error superior to that of Allen & Craig, and otherwise affirmed.

West & Cochran, for plaintiff in error.

DENMAN, J.

Plaintiff in error, G. W. Glasscock, on the 12th day of February, 1896, recovered in the district court of Williamson county a judgment in the following words: "G. W. Glasscock v. M. P. Kelley & Co. No. 3,210. The above numbered and entitled cause this day coming on to be heard by the court, came the plaintiff in person and by attorney, and the defendants in person and by attorney appeared, except the defendant R. Lyles, when the judgment herein rendered was agreed upon, to wit: That plaintiff, G. W. Glasscock, on his cause of action as pleaded, was entitled to recover the sum of 2,469 & 86/100 dollars from each of the defendants, to wit, the firm of M. P. Kelley & Co. and the firm of M. P. Kelley and Associates, both of which firms were composed of the following persons, viz.: M. P. Kelley, D. H. Snyder, J. W. Snyder, estate of Emzy Taylor, Lee M. Taylor as executor of said estate, Lee M. Taylor individually, R. Lyles, and the Georgetown & Granger Railroad Company, and the Trinity, Cameron & Western Railroad Company; and it further appearing that each of said defendants had filed an answer herein and agreed thereto, except the defendant R. Lyles and the defendant Frank Hamilton, plaintiff dismisses as to the defendants Frank Hamilton and R. Lyles individually. It is therefore considered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the plaintiff G. W. Glasscock do have and recover of and from the defendants M. P. Kelley & Co. and M. P. Kelley & Associates, and the individual members of said firm, to wit, M. P. Kelley, D. H. Snyder, J. W. Snyder, estate of Emzy Taylor, through and against Lee M. Taylor as executor of said estate, and Lee M. Taylor individually, and of the Georgetown & Granger Railroad Company, and the Trinity, Cameron & Western Railroad Company, the sum of twenty-four hundred sixty-nine & 86/100 ($2,469.86) dollars, and all costs in this behalf expended, and that this judgment bear ten per centum interest from date hereof, for all of which let execution issue after six months from this date." He had an abstract of this judgment properly recorded and indexed in the records of said county as required by the statutes in relation to judgment liens, as to all the parties mentioned therein, except R. Lyles, whose name was not given in any part of the index. The district court and court of civil appeals held that Glasscock did not thereby acquire a lien upon the land of M. P. Kelley situated in said county, and therefore refused in this cause to fix said judgment as a lien upon certain lands of said Kelley. If said ruling of the courts below was correct, the judgment must be affirmed; otherwise it must be reformed, foreclosing in favor of Glasscock said judgment, as a lien upon the land.

We are of opinion that the court of civil appeals were correct in holding that the judgment shows on its face that R. Lyles was one of the partners in each of said firms. We are also of opinion that they were in error in treating the attempted judgment against "M. P. Kelley & Co. and M. P. Kelley and Associates" as having any force or effect in law. If we are correct in this, it follows...