Case Name: BONHAM WHOLESALE GROCERY CO. v. MYRICK et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-06-09
Citations: 285 S.W. 834
Docket Number: No. 3268
Parties: BONHAM WHOLESALE GROCERY CO. v. MYRICK et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 285
Pages: 834–835

Head Matter:
BONHAM WHOLESALE GROCERY CO. v. MYRICK et al.
(No. 3268.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
June 9, 1926.
Behearing Granted June 17, 1926.)
Cunningham & Bipscomb, of Bonham, for appellant.
Fred S. Bogers, of Bonham, for appellees.

Opinion:
BEVY, J.
The appellant brought the suit against Mrs. Bou Myrick in trespass to try title to 45.75 acres of land. The real object of the suit was to have removed a cloud upon the title to the land, alleged to have been created by a certain vendor's lien note payable to Mrs. Bou Myrick. The note was executed by Earl Myrick. The substantial controversy was as to whether or not the vendor's lien note was satisfied and canceled prior to the time the appellant purchased the land. Mrs. Myrick pleaded the lien, and by cross-action sought to have it foreclosed as against the appellant. The maker of the note was not made a party to the. suit. In keeping with the verdict of the jury, the court entered judgment in favor of the appellant for the title to the land, but subject to a foreclosure of the vendor's lien in favor of Mrs. Myrick. No personal judgment was rendered against appellant for the amount of the note.
The pertinent point on appeal is whether or not the maker of the note in the circumstances'of the case was a necessary party to the foreclosure of the lien. Bou Myrick, as owner of the- land, on October 20, 1922, conveyed the land in suit to her son, Earl My-rick. As a part of the consideration, Earl Myrick executed and delivered his note for $3,000. The note recited that it was given in part payment of the land. The face of the deed did not expressly retain a lien to secure the payment of the note. On October 18, 1923, Earl Myrick and wife conveyed the land to O. S. McFarland. Mr. McFarland did not assume the payment of the note. On August 4, 1924, O. S. McFarland and wife conveyed the land to the appellant. The appellant did not assume the payment of the note. The note was past due, and in part unpaid at the time of the suit, as appears to be a finding of fact. The appellant was in the exclusive possession of the land, and claiming to be the absolute owner.
The answer set up a good defense in the circumstances, so far as the rights of Mrs. Myrick were sought to be affected. The appellant's action sought to relieve the title to the land of the cloud over it of the apparently existing lien in virtue of the unpaid purchase money evidenced by the note. The very nature of the suit required of Mrs. Myrick either to assert or relinquish her claim of lien against tibe land. If slie had not made such defense, she would have been barred of any right thereafter to enforce the lien. And in the circumstances no legal reason is perceived why the maker of the note was a necessary party to the suit; a mere foreclosure of the lien on the land being adjudged with no personal judgment on the note against appellant. The maker of the note had parted with all his right and title to the land, and the appellant, claiming to be the absolute owner, was in exclusive possession of the premises. Sewell v. Spitzer (Tex. Com. App.) 234 S. W. 1083; Hartfield v. Greber (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 85. The pleadings were legally sufficient to support the judgment.
The judgment is affirmed.