Case Name: HUNKER v. ESTES et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-05-10
Citations: 159 S.W. 470
Docket Number: 
Parties: HUNKER v. ESTES et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 159
Pages: 470–474

Head Matter:
HUNKER v. ESTES et al.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.
May 10, 1913.
On Motion for Rehearing, May 31, 1913.
On Further Motion for Rehearing, July 5, 1913.)
1. Appeal and Error (§ 614 ) — Statement oe Facts — Authentication.
The statute provides that when a statement of facts has been agreed to by the parties and approved by the judge, the duplicate shall be filed with the clerk of the lower court, and the original sent up as a part of the record on appeal; hence, where there were what purported to be two statements of facts, one marked “original,” but having only the certificate of the court stenographer, with no agreement of the parties, and no approval of the judge indorsed thereon, and the other not marked either “duplicate” or “original,” with no certificate of the clerk that it was one or the other, neither will be considered by the court.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, CentDig. §§ 2789, 2790 ; Dec.Dig. § 014 1
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Vendor and Purchaser (§ 281 ) — Bona Fide Purchaser — Facts Putting on Inquiry.
Evidence, in a suit to foreclose a vendor’s lien on property in the hands of a purchaser from the vendee, held to sustain a finding that there were sufficient facts known to the purchaser at the time of the purchase which, if pursued with reasonable diligence, would have given him notice that the note sued on had not been paid, and that the vendor’s lien by which it was secured had not been extinguished, and that the deed of release on record, purporting to release them, was a mistake.
[Ed. Note. — For o'ther cases, see Vendor and Purchaser, Cent. Dig. §§ 792-794; Dec. Dig. § 281. ]
3. Vendor and Purchaser (§ 267 ) — Vendor’s Lien — Release.’
The land described in a deed was section 82, block 12, certificate 2/251, H. & 6. N. Ry. Co. school land, and the recited consideration was $3,700; $1,500 cash, one note for $1,000, and one for $1,200, and a vendor’s lien was retained in both the deed and notes. A deed of release by the vendor recited that he released section 82, block 12, certificate 2/251, H. & G. N. Ry. Co. school land, from the lien of a note for $2,400. Held, that the deed of release did not release the lien of the $1,200 note described in the deed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Vendor and Purchaser, Cent. Dig. §§ 751-758; Dec. Dig. § 267. ]
4. Liens (§ 1 ) -Definition.
A lien is a legal claim or hold on property, either real or personal, as security for the payment of some debt or obligation.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Liens, Cent. Dig. §§ 1, 4, 23; Dec. Dig. § 1.
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, ol. 5, pp. 4184-4153; vol. S. p. 7707.]
On Further Motion for Rehearing.
5. Vendor and Purchaser (§ 280 ) — Action fob Purchase Monet — Complaint.
In a suit to collect a vendor's lien note, and to foreclose the vendor’s lien on the property in the hands of a purchaser from the ven-dee, it was not necessary for the vendor to allege that the purchaser had notice of the lien, or that he was not a purchaser in good faith.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Vendor and Purchaser, Cent. Dig. §§ 784-789, 791; Dec. Dig. § 280. ]
Appeal from District Court, Collingsworth County; D. E. Decker, Judge.
Suit by J. T. Estes and others against J. Hunker. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
Affirmed. Affirmed on rehearing.
Clinton C. Small and J. L. Lackey, both of Wellington, for appellant. R. H. Templeton, of Wellington, and S. A. Horton, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellees.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HUFF, C. J.
We are unable to consider the statement of facts filed in this case. There is what purports to be two statement of facts — one is not a copy of the other. Both were filed in this court February 17, 1913, and both indorsed filed by the clerk of the district court of Collingsworth county, January 4, 1913. One is marked "original," but this one has only the certificate of the court stenographer, and no agreement indorsed upon it, signed by the parties to the case, and no approval by the judge trying the same. Part of this statement is in question and answer form, and some three or four loose leaves pinned in the record. The other statement is not marked — either duplicate or original — and has no certificate from the clerk of the court that it is either the one or the other. The index calls for certain instruments which are not in the statement of facts. The attorney for appellee cites us in his brief to the pages of the statement of facts for certain instruments not found in the statement, and which the index calls for. The law provides that when a statement of facts is "agreed to by the parties and approved by the judge," the duplicate shall be filed with the clerk, and the original sent up as a part of the record in the cause on appeal. It will be seen from the above statement nearly every provision of the law has been violated in one or the other of the statements on file. We cannot determine from the record before us that either is a true and correct statement of facts adduced upon the trial. The affirmative evidence, as appears from the face of the statements themselves, is that neither presents the case upon which the trial court passed. It may be said in passing, both parties in this case present the same as if the deed from Estes to White had been duly recorded, and that Hunker had notice thereof. The record fails to show such recording of the deed. It would be useless for us to try to dispose of the case with any degree of justice to either party in the condition in which we find the record. This court has held that a duplicate statement of facts must be filed with the clerk of the court where the case was tried,, and the original sent to this court. As seen, no original is sent to this court, agreed to by the parties, and approved by the judge. Witherspoon v. Crawford, 153 S. W. 633. There is an instrument here which does not appear to be either a duplicate or an original. Whatever it is, the index and the absence of a page from it shows it is not what it purports to be — a true and correct statement of the facts and evidence before the trial court. We cannot permit such total disregard of the statute as well as the rules. The brief of the respective parties evidently cites from a different statement to the one on file in this court. To permit such practice and overlook such a flagrant disregard' to the law and rutes would render the practice in this court too uncertain, and would open the door wide for the mutilation of the records of this court. Personally, the writer believes no statement should ever leave the clerk's office of the trial court without his certificate, under his seal, that it is the original, and that the duplicate of the same is on file and kept by him in his office. The statement of facts is a part of the record, and should be safeguarded with all the care that other portions of the record are required to be kept. Heflin v. Railway Co. (Sup.) 155 S. W. 188. There is no such statement of facts in this case as we feel warranted in considering, and there is no finding of fact and conclusions of law filed by the trial court, and from an inspection of the transcript, no such error is apparent, requiring a reversal.
The case will therefore be affirmed.