Strickland v. Dobbs

Court of Appeals of Texas

Strickland v. Dobbs

200 S.W. 1125, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 94

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided January 24, 1918·No. No. 1886.·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

WILLSON, O. J.

(after stating the facts as above). The contention that the mortgage to secure the payment of the purchase price of the furniture was void because it was not signed and acknowledged by appellant’s wife is predicated upon section 11 of Act March 1, 1915 (General Laws, p. 48 [Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. Supp. 1918, art. 6171 j]), known as the “Loan Brokers’ Law.” If that act applies to mortgages to persons not engaged, and appellee was not, in the business of lending money on interest, it nevertheless did not apply to the mortgage in question. The statute was intended to apply only to arcase where the husband, owning household or kitchen furniture, undertakes to mortgage it to secure the repayment of money loaned to him. In that kind of a case a mortgage by the husband is, by the terms of the act, void unless signed and acknowledged by the wife. The mortgage to appellee was not to secure a loan. It was to secure the payment of the purchase money of the identical property it covered.

The judgment is affirmed.

Footnotes

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

WILLSON, O. J.

(after stating the facts as above). The contention that the mortgage to secure the payment of the purchase price of the furniture was void because it was not signed and acknowledged by appellant’s wife is predicated upon section 11 of Act March 1, 1915 (General Laws, p. 48 [Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. Supp. 1918, art. 6171 j]), known as the “Loan Brokers’ Law.” If that act applies to mortgages to persons not engaged, and appellee was not, in the business of lending money on interest, it nevertheless did not apply to the mortgage in question. The statute was intended to apply only to arcase where the husband, owning household or kitchen furniture, undertakes to mortgage it to secure the repayment of money loaned to him. In that kind of a case a mortgage by the husband is, by the terms of the act, void unless signed and acknowledged by the wife. The mortgage to appellee was not to secure a loan. It was to secure the payment of the purchase money of the identical property it covered.

The judgment is affirmed.

Footnotes

Strickland v. Dobbs, 200 S.W. 1125, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 94 (Tex. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

200 S.W. 1125 (Strickland v. Dobbs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related