Matthews v. Melasky

• Decision Date: 12 April 1922
• Docket Number: (No. 6739.)
• Citation: 240 S.W. 641
• Parties: MATTHEWS v. MELASKY et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

240 S.W. 641

MATTHEWS v. MELASKY et al.

(No. 6739.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

April 12, 1922.

Appeal from Williamson County Court; F. D. Love, Judge.

Action by Hyman Melasky and another, executor, against Paul Matthews and J. L. Reeves. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant Matthews appeals. Affirmed.

Wilcox & Graves, of Georgetown, for appellant.

Melasky & Moody, of Taylor, for appellees.

SMITH, J.

As a tenant of Porter Walker, J. L. Reeves raised a cotton crop on Walker's farm in Williamson county in 1920. For the purpose of enabling Reeves to carry on his farming operations appellee Melasky advanced certain supplies to him, taking his notes therefor, secured by chattel mortgage on the crop to be grown. The mortgage was duly recorded. Reeves also borrowed $500 from a local bank, and used the money thus obtained in making his crop. His landlord, Walker, joined Reeves on this note, with the understanding that he would be protected, as such indorser, by the landlord's lien. Reeves made his crop, and sold all of it, and out of the proceeds paid off the note to the bank, but did not pay off the Melasky notes. Appellant, Paul Matthews, purchased part of the cotton from Reeves. Melasky brought this suit against Reeves for the amount of the notes, and against Matthews for conversion of the cotton, alleging that the latter had notice of Reeves' debt and of the chattel mortgage on the crop. Upon a trial of the cause, the court directed a verdict for Melasky as prayed for, and judgment was rendered upon this verdict. Matthews alone has appealed.

In his first assignment of error appellant asserts that the chattel mortgage was insufficient, for the reason that —

"In order to constitute notice, the description of the property therein mortgaged must be certain and definite, or contain therein such a description or reference as that by following up such the property can be identified with certainty."

The property was described in the mortgage as:

All of the mortgagor's crop, "consisting of 80 acres of cotton * * * on the Porter Walker farm, about 11 miles south of Taylor, Texas, or any other crop grown on any other place in said county that I may cultivate."

The proof showed that the farm in question was situated about 12 miles southwest of Taylor, and was owned by Fred Walker, but leased by Porter Walker, who sublet it to Reeves. Matthews, who purchased the cotton, knew the relations of the Walkers and Reeves, and the location...