Kirchoff v. Voss
| Decision Date | 04 February 1887 |
| Citation | 3 S.W. 548 |
| Parties | KIRCHOFF <I>v.</I> VOSS. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Moore, Duncan & Meerscheidt, for appellant. Brown & Dunn, for appellee.
The appellee brought this action against Joseph Zeigelbauer and Ed. Moellenbrandt, on the notes executed by the former to the latter, and indorsed by him to the appellee. The notes were given for land sold by Moellenbrandt to Zeigelbauer, on which the appellee sought to establish and enforce the vendor's lien. The appellant, asserting a claim to the land, was made a defendant, and in his answer he claimed to be the owner. It appears that on July 17, 1879, Gus. Moellenbrandt, then the owner of a tract of land of which the 100 acres in controversy is a part, executed a deed of trust on the tract of land to secure the payment of five promissory notes on that day executed to appellant by Gus. Moellenbrandt, Ed. Moellenbrandt, and others, amounting in the aggregate to $1,100. One of these notes became due January 1, 1885, and another on January 1, 1884, and these were for the aggregate sum of $350. The other notes matured earlier. On October 26, 1882, Gus. Moellenbrandt conveyed the 100 acres of land in controversy to Ed. Moellenbrandt. On March 15, 1883, John Kirchoff entered into a written agreement with Ed. Moellenbrandt, by which he agreed, in consideration of $100 then paid to him, and in further consideration of a negotiable note for $115, due and payable to him on December 25, 1884, bearing interest after maturity, executed to him by Ed. Moellenbrandt on the same day, to release the latter from liability on the notes which he held secured by the trust deed. He further agreed that, when the note for $115 was paid, to release the 100 acres of land from the lien held by him. That note was not paid at maturity, and an extension of time was asked and refused. On the first Tuesday in February, 1885, not crediting the notes which he held with the $100 paid on March 15, 1883, there was due to Kirchoff $692.50 on the notes secured by trust deed. On the first Tuesday in February, 1885, Kirchoff caused the trustee to sell the entire tract of land covered by the trust deed, and himself became the purchaser. Soon after the sale Ed. Moellenbrandt offered to pay the note for $115, with all interest due upon it, and Kirchoff refused to receive it, and the full amount thereof, with all interest due on it, was paid into court. Judgment was entered establishing and enforcing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Coleman v. Kenley
...p. 765. See, also, Merchants' National Bank v. McAnulty, 89 Tex. 124, 33 S.W. 963; Id., Tex.Civ.App., 31 S.W. 1091, 1097; Kirchoff v. Voss, 67 Tex. 320, 322, 3 S.W. 548; Bridges v. Phillips, 17 Tex. 128, 129; Bates v. Wills Point Bank, 11 Tex.Civ.App. 73, 32 S.W. 339, 340; Elgin City Bankin......
-
City of Beaumont v. Fertitta, A--11007
...in character from those which they were legally bound to observe, the amendment was supported by consideration. See Kirchoff v. Voss, 67 Tex. 320, 3 S.W. 548 (1887); Lockhart State Bank v. Baker, 264 S.W. 566 (Tex.Civ.App.1924, no writ); 1 Williston, Contracts, § 121 (1936); Restatement, Co......
-
Young v. Bank of Miami
...time of the essence of a contract, he should leave no doubt of the intention of the contracting parties so to make it." Kirchoff v. Voss, 67 Tex. 320, 3 S. W. 548. The appellants assail the findings of the court, to the effect that the appellee was acting in substantial compliance with the ......
-
Nicholson v. Whyte
...of the contract, and that the parties left no doubt as their purpose to so make the language of the contract declare. Kirchoff v. Voss, 67 Tex. 321, 3 S. W. 548; Davis v. Fant, 93 S. W. 193; Lieber v. Nicholson et al. (Com. App.) 206 S. W. 512; Hollifield v. Landrum et al., 31 Tex. Civ. App......