Henderson v. Odessa Building & Finance Co., (No. 1161-5466.)
| Decision Date | 19 February 1930 |
| Docket Number | (No. 1161-5466.) |
| Citation | 24 S.W.2d 393 |
| Parties | HENDERSON et al. v. ODESSA BUILDING & FINANCE CO. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Paul Moss, of Odessa, for plaintiffs in error.
John F. Weeks and C. W. Tate, all of Odessa, for defendant in error.
On April 28, 1928, plaintiffs in error recovered a judgment for $1,200 against Mrs. Florence Williams, and on May 1, 1928, an abstract of this judgment was duly recorded in Ector county. On May 31, 1928, execution was issued, and the sheriff levied the same on lot 3, block 102, South Williams addition to the town of Odessa, Ector county, Tex., and advertised it for sale, the same being sold on July 23, 1928, plaintiffs in error purchasing the same at such sale.
On June 28, 1928, after the lien had been fixed by the abstract of such judgment and the levy made on the above-described property, Mrs. Florence Williams, the record owner of the lot, executed and delivered to defendant in error what purported to be a confirmation deed, in which it was recited that by mistake her deed of November 7, 1927, to said corporation recited lot 5, block 103, instead of lot 3, block 102.
Defendant in error brought this suit against plaintiffs in error to recover the title and possession of said lot, alleging that the sheriff of Ector county had levied on the same as the property of Mrs. Florence Williams, and sold it to plaintiffs in error, who were threatening to dispossess it, and that at the time of the levy they had purchased said lot from Mrs. Florence Williams, but through mistake her deed to it misdescribed the lot.
The trial was to the court; judgment being rendered in favor of defendant in error. The trial court filed findings of fact, in which it was found that, at the time of the execution and delivery of the deed of Mrs. Florence Williams to the defendant in error, the parties to such transaction were under the impression that said deed contained the lot in controversy, both being under the impression that the same was lot 3 in block 102 in the South Williams addition to the town of Odessa, and that it was the intention of Mrs. Williams and defendant in error that the deed should have recited lot 3 in block 102 instead of lot 3, block 103.
It was further found by the trial court that on the date of the levy on lot 3, block 102, plaintiffs in error had no notice that Mrs. Florence Williams intended by her deed of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Creamer Industries, Inc.
...of such equity at the time their levy was made, the lien thereby fixed was superior to defendant in error\'s right to such reformation." 24 S.W.2d at 394. That decision seems almost "on all fours" with the present case. It follows that the judgment should have gone for the The judgment of t......
-
Donald v. Davis
...that the Bank had such notice at the time of levy of execution. Ives v. Culton, Tex. Com.App., 229 S.W. 321; Henderson v. Odessa Building & Finance Co., Tex.Com. App., 24 S.W.2d 393; Segrest v. Hale, Tex. Civ.App., 164 S.W.2d 793, writ refused, w. o. m. It is not enough to prove that the pu......
-
Walters v. Pete
...Marchman v. McCoy Hotel Operating Co., 21 S.W.2d 552 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth 1929, no writ); Henderson v. Odessa Building & Finance Co., 24 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Comm.App.1930, opinion adopted); Miles v. Martin, 159 Tex. 336, 321 S.W.2d 62 Under certain circumstances the law will presume that a ......
-
In re Tri-Sonic, Inc.
...and (2) they must not have notice, Paris Grocery Co. v. Burks, 101 Tex. 106, 105 S.W. 174 (1907); Henderson v. Odessa Building and Finance Co., 24 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Comm. App., 1930). The filing of the notice of tax liens by the Internal Revenue Service and the State elevated them to lien cre......