Waldon v. Davis
Decision Date | 09 March 1916 |
Docket Number | (No. 100.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Citation | 185 S.W. 1000 |
Parties | WALDON v. DAVIS. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Shelby County; W. C. Buford, Judge.
Action by W. I. Davis against James Waldon. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
D. M. Short & Sons, of Center, for appellant. Davis & Davis, of Center, for appellee.
This suit was brought in the district court of Shelby county, Tex., and sought judgment and foreclosure of vendor's lien for $715, as evidenced by two notes for $357.50 each. Note No. 1 was past due at the time of the filing of the suit, and under the terms of the notes, the second note was elected due. The notes retained a vendor's lien upon said lands, and a vendor's lien was also retained in the deed executed to Waldon at the time the notes were executed.
Numerous pleadings were filed by both sides, which, briefly stated, amount to affirmation by the plaintiff that he was the owner and holder in good faith, for a valuable consideration, of the note sued on, and that if the notes did not properly and legally retain a vendor's lien upon the land, and he was a purchaser in good faith for value of the notes, without notice or knowledge of any defense against the notes, and was therefore an innocent purchaser of the notes before their maturity. This plea was in addition to the ordinary plea for judgment and foreclosure of the vendor's lien.
Defendant answered by general denial, pleaded settlement of the original purchase-money note, and also pleaded simulation in the securing and execution of the notes, and that in reality the transaction was an attempt to create a mortgage upon the homestead of Waldon after the original purchase money had been paid.
The able trial judge filed very exhaustive conclusions of fact, which we copy, and which give a full statement of the case, as well as the facts supporting his conclusions.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stillman v. Hirsch
...209 S.W. 704; Nunn v. Veale (Tex.Civ.App.) 149 S.W. 758; Davidson v. Patton (Tex. Civ.App.) 149 S.W. 757; Waldon v. Davis (Tex.Civ.App., writ refused) 185 S.W. 1000; Hardin v. Hanson (Tex.Civ.App.) 220 S.W. 368; Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. v. Hamrick (Tex.Civ.App.) 60 S.W. (2d) 247; Smith ......
-
Bothe v. Gleason
...303; 76 N.E. 350-2; 2 Ohio C. C. 70; 50 N.E. 933-5; 69 I d. 523-6; 81 Am. Dec. 242; 15 Pet. 21; 22 Oh. St. 435; 66 N.E. 245, 547; 185 S.W. 1000; 60 Ark. 180. O. Young and Geo. C. Lewis, for appellee. 1. The wife had the right to redeem--she was a necessary party. Wiltsie on Mortg. Forecl., ......
-
Bothe v. Gleason
...17 Fla. 813; Mutual Building Ass'n v. Wyeth, 105 Ala. 639, 17 South. 45; Kuhnert v. Conrad, 6 N. D. 215, 69 N. W. 185; Waldon v. Davis (Tex. Civ. App.) 185 S. W. 1000. In Fowler v. Bracy, supra, the Michigan court, in disposing of the question, "The sole question, therefore, is whether, in ......
-
Ohmart v. Highbarger, 8676.
...Tex. 255; City of San Antonio v. Berry, 92 Tex. 319, 48 S. W. 496; Butler v. Carter (Tex. Civ. App.) 58 S. W. 632, 634; Waldon v. Davis (Tex. Civ. App.) 185 S. W. 1000; Collins v. Ferguson, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 552, 56 S. W. 225; Jackson v. Bradshaw, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 394, 67 S. W. 438, 439. W......