El Paso daily herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1881-1901, 1899-12-21
MORTGAGING
A HOMESTEAD
Not Possible Under the Laws
Of the State Of Texas
TRIAL OF THEALBERS CASE
Held To Bring Out Facts And Not
Lava Mortgage On the North
Property Would Be Invalid-The
Testimony

The trial OF the case OF A. K. AlOers
against George and Ida North was
yesterday. 81. r. Wood, the real es-
tate dealer, testified that he had called
upon North when he was living On th e
property in dispute TO collect the rent,
and thai North acknowledged that it
was due aud unpaid.
George North, the next witness,
testified that he had paid $500 for
the lots. He built the house to which
DR.. Albers claims possession. When
com pleted he said it was worth $1,000.
exclusive of the land. He had lived in
the house until December 1897, when
he was elected. He had borrowed
$4,000 from the plaintiff and paid him
at the rate OF $40 per month. The
deed upon which DR.. Albers ella ms
the title to the house was given to him
simply to SECURE the payment of the
money.
Miss Alma North and Mrs. Ida
North testified as to conversation
between them and DIR. Albers in W bich
DR.. Albers told them not to worry
about losing their home and that she
deed was mere matter OF form. Mrs.
North testified that when she signed
the deed she understo that the in
strument was intended only as security
for the borrowed money. She admit
ted that she had known before she
came to Ell PasO that money could not
be obtained upon a mortgage given on
a homestead. She thought that by
giving the deed the loan could be
arranged and that was why she signed
the paper.
Mr.. Hughes testified that the house
was worth, in his opinion, 5000. A.
+. Coles testified in rebuttal that he
had taken acknowledgements of both
the lease and the deed to the house.
Ho he nloin RI
Jae provisions of the deed and that she
understood 1t. He told her that she
was signing deed that conveyed in
fee simple to DR.. Albers the lots in
controversy, and asked her if she was
signing it Of her own free will. She
said she was. Mr.. Coles said that in
his opinion the price paid fer the prop
erty, some S5O33, with added interest,
was fair price.
II. r. Wood was recalled and said
when DR.. Albers had decided to buy
the house aud lots he had employed
witnesses to examine the property and
appraise it. He had gone thoroughly
over the premises and had estimated
the house to be worth SO, 500 and the
six lots $3.50 piece, making $1,000 in
al. He regarded this as a liberal es-
Innate North had gone to Albers to
borrow Sl400, and both of them had
come tt witness real estate Office.
Witness told them both very plainly no
money could be borrowed on home
stead. That mortgage on a homestead
would not be worth the paper it was
written on. Afterwards North sold
the property out and out to Albers. |
Witness knew Albers paid North
$4,000 cash for he saw the check.
Attorney w. 81. Burgess testified |
that he had been employed by DR.. AL
bers to look up thu title to the prop |
erty. North wanted to borrow money |
from Albers, but the witness told them |
both plainly that homestead could not |
be m ortgaged, and that il a deed were |
given to such property to operate as |
mortgage it would be invalid.
DIR. Albers testified he had bought |
the property in good faith, paying |
SO, 600 cash and assuming the payment
of the notes. There was no other I'M
derstsnding between him and North.
Witness, after the advice and instruc-
tiOns of his attorney, Mr.. Burgess,
would never have let North have the
money under any other condition than
the absolute sale of the property.
Mr.. North was then recalled aud
said subsequent to the execution of the
deed which was to operate as mort
gage it had been agreed between him
self aud DR.. Albers that the latter was
to keep the four lots that adJoined wit
ness homestead