McCrory v. Smeltzer
Decision Date | 08 February 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 2201-7248.,2201-7248. |
Citation | 124 S.W.2d 336 |
Parties | McCRORY et al. v. SMELTZER et ux. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
In the year 1929 Lon C. McCrory and W. W. Lathem conveyed certain lands in Dallam County, Texas, to George E. Smeltzer. As consideration for these lands, Smeltzer assumed payment of an indebtedness due the San Antonio Joint Stock Land Bank in the sum of $10,000, and also executed vendor's lien notes to McCrory and Lathem for balance of purchase price. Smeltzer paid only a small amount on the notes due McCrory and Lathem, and in 1933 the whole indebtedness became largely due and was pressing. Apparently at the suggestion of McCrory and Lathem, Smeltzer made application to the Federal Land Bank of Houston for a loan, the purpose being to consolidate all amounts due against the land into one loan. After considerable negotiations, the Federal Land Bank agreed to make a loan of $15,500. Of this amount a sum sufficient to discharge the debt due the San Antonio Joint Stock Land Bank was to be paid by the Federal Land Bank in cash. The amount necessary to discharge the second lien indebtedness owing McCrory and Lathem was to be paid in bonds of the Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation, of which the Federal Land Bank was agent. On the part of the Federal Land Bank and the Land Bank Commissioner there appears to be no doubt that they intended that the loan of $15,500 should discharge all preexisting liens against the land; that is, the liens held by the San Antonio Joint Stock Land Bank and by McCrory and Lathem. Certain judgment liens which had become attached to the land were to be adjusted otherwise, as will hereinafter appear.
In order to obtain the consent of McCrory and Lathem to accept bonds in settlement and satisfaction of their notes secured by vendor's lien on the land, the Federal Land Bank sent them blank forms to be executed evidencing their assent. They did not execute this formal assent but instead wrote the Bank the following letter:
Before the loan could be consummated it became necessary for the judgment liens to be satisfied. McCrory and Lathem, by various efforts, were able to get the amount of these judgments reduced to the sum of $714, which amount they paid, and which appears to have been approximately one fourth of the amount of all such judgments.
At the time the loan was closed the Federal Land Bank sent to the local secretary a transfer and assignment to be executed by McCrory and Lathem of their second lien notes. This transfer and assignment was executed February 26, 1934. Among other things it recited that in consideration of the sum of $4,103.58 paid by the Land Bank Commissioner, acting in pursuance to Part 3 of the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act of 1933, 12 U.S.C.A. §§ 1016-1019, they (McCrory and Lathem) sold and conveyed the unpaid balance of $4,103.58, principal and interest owing on the series of vendor's lien notes previously executed by Smeltzer in part payment for the land mentioned. The instrument further transferred and assigned the lien and all right, title and interest which McCrory and Lathem had in and to said land by virtue of said notes. It contained the following paragraph: "Any and all portion of said above described notes which is not hereby assigned has been fully paid and the lien securing payment thereof is hereby released."
Upon execution and delivery of this transfer and assignment and the vendor's lien notes the secretary of the local association delivered to McCrory and Lathem bonds of the Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation in the sum of $3,800 with $18.18 accrued interest. While at the time the assignment was prepared it was thought the available bonds would amount to the sum of $4,103.58, yet when the transaction was actually closed the available bonds amounted to only $3,800. However, McCrory and Lathem accepted the bonds in accordance with the purport of the instrument which they had executed; that is, in full payment of the balance due on the vendor's lien notes and in full satisfaction of the lien previously held by them securing said notes.
On April 24, 1934, just prior to the closing of the loan, Smeltzer executed and delivered to McCrory and Lathem two notes, one in the sum of $1,327.29, with a credit of $431.12 endorsed thereon, and the other in the sum of $1,113.25, with a credit of $361.42 endorsed thereon, and Smeltzer executed deed of trust upon the land mentioned to secure payment of said notes. This deed of trust was not placed of record. The purported credits upon these notes arose in this way: Pending negotiations for the loan, and as a condition precedent to obtaining said loan, Smeltzer was required to file with the Federal Land Bank an affidavit that his total indebtedness did not exceed the sum of $17,000. In order to enable him to make this affidavit McCrory and Lathem agreed to place upon the vendor's lien notes the purported credits of $431.12 and $361.42, with an understanding that after the loan was obtained, and Smeltzer executed notes for the balance due them, these credits would be restored to the principal indebtedness. The sums of $1,327.29 and $1,113.25 represented by the notes of August 24, 1934, included the $714 which McCrory and Lathem had advanced to satisfy judgments, and also included the difference between the face value of the vendor's lien notes, after deducting a large part of the interest, and the amount of bonds, towit, $3,818.18, received by McCrory and Lathem from the Land Bank Commissioner. Sometime in January 1935 the two notes mentioned were renewed by Smeltzer and wife and new deed of trust upon the land was executed. This deed of trust was then placed of record. When these...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kraetsch v. Stull
... ... § 641 et seq.), was ... enacted to give to distressed farm owners the relief accorded ... to home owners by the Home Owners' Loan Act. McCrory v ... Smeltzer, 132 Tex. 383, 124 S.W.2d 336, 339, 340. The ... decisions thereunder, in like situations, accord with those ... just above cited ... ...
-
McGinnis v. Rolf
...Bilgore v. Gunn, 150 Fla. 799; 9 So.2d 184; Federal Lank Bank v. Kaslofsky (N. Dak.), 271 N.W. 907; McCrory v. Smeltzer, 132 Texas 383; 124 S.W.2d 336; Council Cohen (Mass.), 21 N.E.2d 967; McClanahan v. United States, 12 F.2d 263; United States v. Kreidler, 11 F.Supp. 402; O'Neill v. Johns......
-
Murphy v. Plains State Bank
... ... & Loan Ass'n v. Sheets, ... Okl.Sup., 130 P.2d 825; Oregon & Western Col. Co. v ... Johnson, 164 Or. 517, 102 P.2d 928; McCrory v ... Smeltzer, 132 Tex. 383, 124 S.W.2d 336; Ellwood v ... Lancaster, Tex.Civ.App., 157 S.W.2d 973 ... Many ... other cases to the ... ...
-
Anderson v. Nelson
...paid is proper is held in McAllister v. Drapeau, supra; Oregon & Western Colonization Co. v. Johnson, 164 Or. 517, 102 P.2d 928; McCrory v. Smeltzer, supra; Council, etc., v. 303 Mass. 348, 21 N.E.2d 967. In the instant case we have no hesitancy in saying that the facts relating to Anderson......