Temple Nat. Bank v. Warner
| Decision Date | 03 November 1898 |
| Citation | 47 S.W. 515 |
| Parties | TEMPLE NAT. BANK et al. v. WARNER. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by W. W. Warner against H. C. Merrick to have a deed declared a mortgage and to cancel the lien of the mortgage. The Temple National Bank and another intervened. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the court of civil appeals (44 S. W. 1025), and interveners bring error. Reversed.
Harris & Saunders, for plaintiffs in error. A. M. Monteith, for defendant in error.
July 6, 1889, Warner executed to Merrick an instrument in the form of an absolute deed, conveying two lots in Temple, Tex., for a consideration of $1,700, recited as paid, and placed him in possession, and, at the same time, Merrick executed an instrument to Warner, purporting to give him the privilege of repurchasing the property within two years upon the payment of $1,700, which instrument was duly recorded same day. August 1, 1889, Merrick executed his notes to the Temple Building & Investment Company, amounting to $1,235.16, and secured them by trust deed on said property. August 7, 1889, Merrick executed to the Temple National Bank, through one of its officers, a note for $700, in consideration of past indebtedness, and secured it by trust deed upon said lots and delivering possession of same. This suit was brought by Warner against Merrick to have said deed declared a mortgage to secure $1,700, agreed to be paid by him for one-half interest in a saloon business, and to cancel the lien of such mortgage, on the ground that Merrick fraudulently misrepresented to him the value of the stock of goods in such business to be $3,400, and that there were no debts against same, when in truth it was of little value, and was much involved, necessitating his paying out large sums, amounting to more than the $1,700, in order to save the property, and for recovery of possession of the property and rents. Merrick answered, contesting Warner's claim. The bank and the building and investment company each intervened, asking a foreclosure of its lien, secured as aforesaid. By supplemental petition, Warner sought to recover the property and rents from interveners. During the trial Merrick withdrew his defense, and virtually confessed that Warner was entitled to judgment against him. The cause then proceeded between Warner and interveners, two of the principal issues between them being (1) whether the instrument from Warner to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dean v. Smith
... ... at the time of the trial was greater than in April, 1915 ... ( Temple Nat. Bank v. Warner, 92 Tex. 226, 47 S.W ... 515) but the defendant ... ...
-
Dean v. Smith
...absolute or for security only, that the value of the land at the time of the trial was greater than in April, 1915 (Temple Nat. Bank v. Warner, 92 Tex. 226, 47 S. W. 515), but the defendant contends, in the language of this court in Miller v. Smith, supra: “That the great rise in land value......
-
Napper v. Johnson
...This is circumstantial evidence that defendant should have known that the transaction was intended to operate as a mortgage. Temple Nat. Bk. v. Warner, 92 Tex. 226, 47 S .W. 515; Moorhead v. Ellison, Er.Ref., 56 Tex.Civ.App. 444, 120 S.W. 1049; Norton v. Lea, Tex.Civ.App. (NWH) 170 S.W. 267......
-
Vandervoort v. Sansom
...Worth, 1933, 63 S.W.2d 861, writ dism.; Temple Nat. Bank v. Warner, Tex.Civ.App.1898, 44 S.W. 1025, reversed on other grounds in 92 Tex. 226, 47 S.W. 515; Hickman v. Cooper, Tex.Civ.App., Eastland, 1948, 210 S.W.2d 858, writ ref., n. r. The defendants predicate a point of error upon the pro......