Court Opinion

ID: 9828218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:13:11.605519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:46.029191
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[5] It is insisted in appellants’ motion for rehearing that their possession of the premises at the time the note was assigned by Eindley to the bank was sufficient to put the latter upon notice of their homestead, claim. That may be true; but the homestead claim was not inconsistent with an outstanding vendor’s lien for the purchase money which the deed from Findley to Martin disclosed. The rule applicable to such a situation is well stated in the following cases: New England Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Harrell et al., 39 S. W. 142; Sparks v. Loan Agency, 19 S. W. 258.
The motion is overruled.