Streeper v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 05 September 1893
• Parties: STREEPER v. THOMPSON et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

23 S.W. 326

STREEPER v. THOMPSON et al.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

September 5, 1893.

Appeal from district court, Grayson county; H. O. Head, Judge.

Action by J. E. Streeper against A. H. Thompson & Son on certain notes. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Standifer & Moseley and Brown & Bliss, for appellant. Decker & Harris and T. W. Stratton, for appellees.

Conclusions of Fact.

FINLEY, J.

(1) September 15, 1886, appellees bought from appellant a lot of hotel furniture for $6,000, paying $150 in cash, and for the balance, on same date, executed 39 notes for $150 each, due at intervals of 30 days. To secure these notes, appellees gave a mortgage upon the property bought, which empowered appellant, in case of default in the payment of any of the notes, to take possession of the property conveyed, and sell the same for the best price obtainable, and with the proceeds of the sale to pay off said notes. The property at the time of the sale was in the Colonade Hotel, in the city of Denison, Tex., owned by appellant, which appellees leased and operated, retaining the said furniture therein. (2) Appellees paid off six of said notes first falling due, and then made default in the payment of the others. Appellant, without resistance from appellees, entered into and took possession of the property conveyed by the mortgage. Appellees had put $1,000 worth of additional furniture into the hotel, but they were allowed to and did move this furniture from the hotel. When appellant took possession, the lease having been canceled, he permitted appellees to remain in the house with appellant's agent, and set meals, a few days longer, to give them an opportunity to collect some bills from railroad employes when the pay car should arrive, after which they agreed to get out of the house. (3) About the time for appellees, under this agreement, to get out of the house, they attempted to interrupt the possession of appellant, when he sued out an injunction in the district court of Grayson county, restraining them from interfering with appellant's possession. On hearing, this injunction was perpetuated until the right of the parties under the mortgage contract should be settled. The papers in this injunction proceeding were shown to be lost, except the decree, which was read in evidence, and the issues involved were not intelligently shown. (4) Appellant used the property taken possession of by him under the mortgage for 10 months or more,...