Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-01-12

Mm on foreCueurc or the vtndurh Hen,
pra{lnE IN udluoa Tor g'AeIM ttn, ~, su ,'i
error. 'fhc courts conclusions 81 fact We
an sustained 10y the statomcnt OF facts
Between plaintiff aud defendant an agreed
judgment was entered by which piainuh
sun "'I c6SCfUsioNs or LAW
Our construction of the trpnltcu0ns dis
closed IN the foregoing CONCLUSIONS ~ fact
leads TO tho following conclusions ~ law:
T. The conveyance 10 j. ID. Cock made
him q trustee Tor H.. a. Black. 10 the extent
OF half interest in the lsnd IN controversy
subjected 10 NE Cneuuirrancc created by
the decd ol trust
3 mnsmucli Az Cavncss paid no now con.
alteration, but ucccfted "a absolute cQn'
vtyance from Cock in satisfaction OF his
Cooks position ~ trustee Tor bi4ck, though
he accepted sail decd without notice o. tue
intcrcst OF Black
g. By tho sale aud conveyance to Potter
son by taSiuc3s the former succeeded tp
the position OF trustee Geo tho cXtcnt Ot "a
lalf lnto-fst 10 the land for thc benefit OF
Block. subject 90 the aaa'iacton ~ We
luitpr OF bis proportQnntc part oi thc IN.
crmhraucc removed from tlo tiilr los The
payment ~ tho amount Originally secured
by the deed of trust.
These conclusions are supported 10y the
following PROPOSE Ions aud ufloutet;
I. Under the facts found Orch ''nd llls ai.
sign became trustees ~ con tructiuu or
Ia3y 10 the eytcnt 81 Bnclts interest IN the
an express uugt was creatcd which may be
shown hg psrOl I'm this state clark vs..
Hnuuy 20 Tex, hll Hudson vs. Wlkn.
son, ~ Tex 1li; Bailey ys. Harris ~
.. A purchase from uustc without no.
tice Of thc trust here the solo cuusIdera-
ton ~ the payment Of a pre-eNsting dent,
takes The property subject 10 Tie trust.
Everett w. ~. 90, 81 Fox 4S0; Perry on
frugta 4 Vol. dee. III. 2l Nckany W..
Thorp q Tex, e52-3; oyerstrev, w. Man
Ming 81 Tev. Go.
in McKnmy w Thorn. above cited IL was
decided In accordance with the great
weight OF American authority that crt g.
itor Who buys from his debtor. and pays
the consideration money by merely credit
Ing the 1lotult upon a pfc-eMa'lng don't,
Is rot "A bcng.lde purchaser for vnluc.
Chief Justice Wi'iio.f however Ia continent.
Ing on tue stgtN'uent "a Wallace W. Camp
heN ~ Tex, SO that such WnrchnHo
might be bohS.nde when q previous .udg.
meut or execution lion had boon secured Up
ou thp properly snli uses tllis language.
1T may qlso I've remarked iaat IN such case
q purchaser sWrcncers an existing sNcUrl-
~, Vz the urey!Ons lien ~ hh judgment
% execution and tbs rs held equivalent 10
the payment ~ q valuable consideration, %
citing Love VS.. Taylor 2G Mi,s., bi4 aud
lWgut ~ lawrence, 10 Paige, Ch.. 10
go Am. a. 222l
A. his rcnark ~ the learned chief ius-
dee though Va substance repeated "a a
subsequent part Of the o. Ion was merely
by WY ~ Illustration or comment and not
essential to me determination OF the Ques.
ton involved In fhat case II IL hot believed
g. he Dindng on us as authority, especially
after examining the cases cited IN IS sup
port. The hret cnso cited Is from Mssis-
Appi,, whore me general American rule fol-
lowed IN this state, as decided m McRHmy
vs. ThOrp and re-nfhrmod IN Ovcrstrcct VA
Manuing, does not prevail it having been
exp SLY decided by the supreme court of
that state, IN The subsequent ease OF eoule
w. Shotwen " Miss. 23G. that the pay.
IheAt aud eytln gughncnt Of an nnticedent
debt, In constellation o. a mul,aueous
transfer OF property constituted the yendeo
q purchaser for value to he same eyteut
as IN lac had paid the money citing the
above case u Love W. Taylor gG Miss
payment and satihfactlon ~ wdfrmhfrmh
per takcn iu due course of trade rs racoc.
nized as an exception 10 the general Amcri.
! ,9n rnlc, as u wcll settled by N long lire
~ decisions IN ana out OF ihl8 state follow.
| yet The decision Va Love Vs. Taylor WAS
rested upon the ground that no reason was
perceived why the rule IN regard 10 negoiln-
be securities was not applicable 10 the
In the other case citod the property pur-
chased seems ~ have bcou taken 10 bay.
ment aud satisfaction Of u debt secured by
Judgment Hen on other property. n tho
Identical property conveyed to the pur.
chaser, us IN this case Should be deemed
a new considerations it would seen that For
tho same reason the Satisfaction on un un-
re 1lred debt ahould have IKE eject ON
thi4 point see Went ~. Nayiur 90 Ind
| 43l, though on the main uuostions tho
| adopted in Mississippi We cannot perceive
| bow aga absolute decd 10 Caviness coul1
| place man IA wor'e position than whom
| ne nnld ONLY morlGnse ON the property.
| vantage IN Us results wc think ne shoiild
/ not hr perLuttcd tu HrNil nlsplf OF fho
| equity ~ an innocent purchaser to deprive
Black of A pront which he Otherwise mlghl
i