Case Name: WILLIAM CARLISLE & CO. v. KING et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-02-01
Citations: 133 S.W. 864
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILLIAM CARLISLE & CO. v. KING et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 133
Pages: 864–864

Head Matter:
WILLIAM CARLISLE & CO. v. KING et al.
(Supreme Court of Texas.
Feb. 1, 1911.)
Vendor and Purchaser (§ 231*) — Notice-Records.
Under Rev. St. 1895, art. 4607, providing that an instrument shall be deemed recorded from the time of deposit for record, a deed filed by the county clerk is notice to subsequent purchasers, though not transcribed upon the records, and though the fee for filing was not paid.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Vendor and Purchaser, Cent. Dig. §§ 513-539; Dec. Dig. § 231.*]
On motion for rehearing.
Motion overruled.
For former opinion, see 133 S. W. 241.

Opinion:
BROWN, C. J.
The writer made a fruitless search for this provision embraced in article 2459, Rev. St. 1895, and stated the failure to find it: "No county clerk shall be compelled to file or record any instrument of writing permitted or required by law to be recorded until after payment or tender of payment of all legal fees for such filing or recording has been made; provided, that nothing herein shall be construed to include papers or instruments filed or recorded in suits pending in the county court." The clerk did file the deed and deposited it in his office, where it remained until it was recorded. It does not appear that the fee for filing was not paid. If we grant that it was not, the clerk having actually filed the deed, it gave notice to subsequent purchasers, under the provisions of article 4607, copied in the original opinion, although not transcribed upon the record.
The motion is overruled.