Smith v. Crockett Production Credit Ass'n, 14274

• Decision Date: 21 November 1963
• Docket Number: No. 14274,14274
• Citation: 372 S.W.2d 956
• Parties: Clyde S. SMITH et al., Appellants, v. CROCKETT PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 956

372 S.W.2d 956

Clyde S. SMITH et al., Appellants, v. CROCKETT PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

No. 14274.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Houston.

Nov. 21, 1963.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 12, 1963.

Ted Musick, Houston, for appellants.

Adams & Granberry, F. P. Granberry, Crockett, for appellee.

BELL, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment against Clyde S. Smith in which the court rendered judgment against Smith, on April 19, 1963, for $6,517.20, the balance due on a promissory note which was in renewal and extension of several prior notes, including past due interest and attorney's fees. Also, the judgment provided for foreclosure of a chattel mortgage lien against certain described personal property, the judgment of foreclosure being against both Smith and C. D. Sheffield, who claimed some of the property by reason of purchase or trade from Smith.

The motion for summary judgment was heard while an appeal by those same appellants was pending in this Court from an order of the trial court in overruling appellants' pleas of privilege. We have this day affirmed the action of the trial court in overruling appellants' pleas of privilege.

Appellee's suit was on a promissory note, it seeking to recover the balance due on the note, past due interest, and attorney's fees. Foreclosure of the chattel mortgage lien was also sought as against both appellants.

Appellant Smith, the maker of the note, subject to his plea of privilege, filed an answer containing a general denial and this special plea:

'Defendant, Clyde S. Smith, alleges that the Plaintiff has changed the original mortgages on this land many times and are attempting now to foreclose upon items not set out in the original mortgages. The mortgages were fraudulently drawn. The Plaintiff gave the defendant permission to sell the items that the Defendant has sold, which Defendant can prove, and the Plaintiff has received all of the money from all of the sales, except one check for $1800.00, which the Plaintiff received and returned to this Defendant. With the execption of the items sold by permission to the Plaintiff, all of the items listed under the original mortgages are still in tact at Defendant's homestead. This Defendant has been guilty of no sale of mortgaged property without the permission of mortgaged property its agents, servants and employees.'

Prayer was that plaintiff take nothing.

Appellant Sheffield, subject to his plea of privilege, filed his answer containing only a general denial.

On April 5, 1963, appellee filed its motion for summary judgment, stating there was no genuine issue of fact to be decided. The motion was supported by an affidavit of its Secretary-Treasurer swearing to the truth of all of the facts alleged in Plaintiff's Original Petition as well as to the exhibits attached to the motion. The exhibits attached were the promissory notes, the credits shown thereon, and the chattel mortgage, which which were the basis of the suit. The appellee in its Petition had very specifically described the notes, the chattel mortgage, the property covered by it, and all items of credit it had given on the notes. It had also specifically alleged the transfer to Sheffield of certain property covered by the chattel mortgage. The affidavit did except the allegations appellee made against defendant Carel Rasberry. Rasberry and Warnki, another defendant, were dismissed from the suit. Notice was given the appellants of the hearing of the motion for summary judgment to be held on April 19.

By a plea in abatement, filed April 16, 'Defendants' moved to 'abate the motion for summary judgment' until this Court passed on the appeal here pending from the order of the trial court in overruling appellants' pleas of privilege. The plea in abatement was overruled.

We are unable to find that appellant Sheffield filed anything in response to appellee's motion for summary judgment. Appellant Smith filed an answer to the motion, in which he asserted '* * * that there are several fact situations to be determined by a jury, * * *' He made an attached affidavit, which was made by him a part of his answer. The affidavit is as follows:

'My name is Clyde Smith, and I am one of the Defendants in the above styled and numbered cause, and in support of my answer to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, respectfully show the Court the following:

'1. Several fact situations exist in this case, in that the payments were always made timely by this Defendant, and there is no allegation by Plaintiff that the Defendant not up to date on his payments.

'2. This defendant never did sell anything without the permission of the Plaintiff, and therefore, the Plaintiff has no right to attempt to foreclose on any mortgage pledged by the Defendants.

'3. The Plaintiff is attempting to rely on hearsay testimony that is not competent evidence, and therefore should not be a basis for motion for summary judgment.

'4. There has been no allegation in Plaintiff's petition on motion for summary judgment for any true...