Oakes v. Freeman

204 S.W. 360, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 608
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 9, 1918
DocketNo. 1820.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 204 S.W. 360 (Oakes v. Freeman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Oakes v. Freeman, 204 S.W. 360, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 608 (Tex. Ct. App. 1918).

Opinion

LEVY, J.

The appeal is to determine the priority of liens on certain chattels. On September 12, 1913, and in the afternoon thereof, M. Hays executed a chattel mortgage on certain horses and buggies to secure payment of his note of even date for the sum of $1,000 due December 12, 1913, with interest, payable to the order of appellee, J. A. Freeman. It was agreed in the case that the mortgage was left with and filed in the office of the county clerk at 9 o’clock a. m., September 13, 1913, as shown by the clerk’s file mark placed thereon at such date, “and that said ■ original mortgage had remained on file since said September 13, 1913.” The note is unsatisfied. On January 16, 1914, M. Hays leased from the appellant C. H. Oakes his livery stable building until November 1, 1915, for $125 a month payable monthly. M. Hays failed to make payment of the rent for the months of May, June, July, and August, 1915, and this amount of rent is unpaid.

[1, 2] The trial court decreed a priority to the mortgage lien. It is believed that the trial court did not err, for the mortgage lien was acquired prior to the making of the lease contract. Brackenridge v. Millan, 81 Tex. 17, 16 S. W. 555. And the judgment of the trial court involves the finding of fact, having evidence to support such finding, that the mortgage was filed in the county clerk’s office within a reasonable time. Baker v. Smelser, 88 Tex. 26, 29 S. W. 377, 33 L. R. A. 163.

[3] The> appellee objects to the consideration of the third assignment of error, upon the ground that no complaint was made in the trial Court as to any ruling or action of the court; and it is believed that the objection should be sustained. But, even if we should consider the assignment, no reversible error would appear from the record.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

American Type Founders Co. v. Nichols
214 S.W. 391 (Texas Supreme Court, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
204 S.W. 360, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oakes-v-freeman-texapp-1918.