Case Name: ADAMS et al. v. ZELLNER
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1916-03-15
Citations: 183 S.W. 1143
Docket Number: No. 9358
Parties: ADAMS et al. v. ZELLNER.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 183
Pages: 1143–1144

Head Matter:
ADAMS et al. v. ZELLNER.
(No. 9358.)
(Supreme Court of Texas.
March 15, 1916.)
Evidence <s=383(7) — Mortgage Foeeclostjre —Recitals in Deed — Posting Notices.
In trespass to try title for land sold under a nonjudicial foreclosure of a deed of trust which provided that a conveyance made by the trustee should be evidence that the trustee had in all things legally executed his trust, where there is no evidence that notices of the sale mailed in due time by the trustee for posting were or were not posted, the trustee’s deed established, prima facie, that all the requirements of law were observed, including the posting of necessary notices, and the evidence raised no issue on that question.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. § 1668; Dec. Dig. <S=>383(7).]
Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Pifth Supreme Judicial District.
Action by David W. Adams and others against J. H. Zellner. Judgment for defendant (174 S. W. 933), and plaintiffs apply for writ of error.
Writ of error refused.
A. B. Shafer, of Memphis, and Chas. L. Black, of Austin, for plaintiffs in error. Morrow & Morrow, of Hillsboro, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
PHILLIPS, C. J.
The suit was in trespass to try title to recover a tract of land previously sold under a non judicial foreclosure of a deed of trust lien. It was contended by the plaintiffs, the grantors of the deed of trust, that the trustee's sale was void because notices of the sale had not been posted as required by law. The trustee's deed conveying the land to the purchaser at the trustee's sale contained a recital in respect to the notice given, as follows:
"I proceeded to sell said property at public auction .at Hillsboro, Hill County, Texas, between the hours of lO a. m. and 4 p. m. on the first Tuesday, the 6th day of October, 1908, after having given public notice of the time, place and terms of said sale by posting a public notice on the court house door, Hill County, Texas, as required by said deed of trust."
The trustee personally posted the notice at the court house door. He forwarded a notice of the sale to one of the grantors in the deed of trust, the other maker of that instrument being the wife of such grantor, by registered mail, which was duly received.
He also mailed notices to persons at two other different public places in Hill County, to be posted by them, respectively; but there appears to have been no testimony that these latter notices were actually posted. The notice posted by the trustee and those mailed by him for posting were in time to give notice of the sale for more than twenty days prior to its date.
The deed of trust contained the following provision:
"And said deed of conveyance made by the said trustee (the deed to be made by him to the purchaser at a trustee's sale), and delivered to any purchaser of said property at such sale, shall be evidence that said trustee has in all things duly and legally executed his trust," etc.
The trustee's deed was introduced in evidence. In virtue of the provision in the deed of trust, just quoted, the deed established, prima facie, that in the sale under the foreclosure all of the requirements of the law were observed, including the posting of the necessary notices. There was no testimony showing that the notices mailed by the trustee for posting at the two public places in the county other than at the court house door, were not actually posted; and in this state of the record it is our opinion that no issue upon the question was made.
It is proper to call attention to the fact that in Roe v. Davis, 100 Tex. 537, 172 S. W. 708, in which, the opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Brown, in the examination of the trustee while a witness upon the stand, it was stated that his deed to the purchaser at the sale there considered, recited that he had advertised the property "in the manner prescribed by law." We regarded this as substantially the introduction of the recital of the deed in evidence; and it largely influenced our decision of that case.
The writ of error is refused.
t&mFor other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes