Court Opinion

ID: 9830617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:19:51.25255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:24.834721
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
It is urged that the case of Lippencott v. York, 86 Tex. 276, 24 S. W. 275, is an authority for the proposition that a husband and wife may by contract fix a lien on the homestead for labor performed thereon and material furnished, independently of any statutory provision. We do not so understand such decision. By reference to the questions certified, especially to questions 2, 3, 4, and 5, it will be noted that the Supreme Court made a distinction between liens created by law under article 16, § 37, of the state Constitution, such as mechanic’s liens, materialman’s liens, etc., and liens created by contract. After quoting article 16, § 50, of the Constitution, the court said:
“This section of the Constitution,- while it operates as a restriction on the power of a husband and wife to impose charges upon the homestead, recognizes their power to do this by mortgage, trust deed, or other lien to secure payment for work or labor used in constructing improvements upon it; and in the absence of legislation declaring the' only mode in which this may be done, no good reason is perceived why it may not be mortgaged to secure a debt contracted as a debt must he to bind the homestead for labor or material used in improving it.”
After quoting article 16, § 37, of the Constitution, and discussing the same, the court further said:
“Liens by contract take effect from time of execution, and have no retroactive effect as to third persons. Mechanics’ and like liens, when' fixed and secured, as to the improvements made, will be given priority over a mortgage or like lien existing on the land at the time the facts occur which give right to such lien; while a lien created by contract solely will attach to improvements subsequently made on the land covered by the lien, and will not give way to a junior lien of the same character coming into existence after the improvements were made. * * * The power of a husband and wife, in the manner prescribed by the Constitution, to give lien on homestead, by express contract, to secure payment of indebtedness incurred for work or material used in constructing improvements- on the homestead, is made clear by the Constitution, which speaks of mortgages and trust deeds, which can exist only through contract. * * * The contract husband and wife must make before lien for work or material used in improving their homestead can exist undei-the statute need not state that it is the intent to give lien to the contractor, and such a statement might not defeat the right of a contractor to fix and secure the statutory lien; but when the agreement or contract made By the parties evidences intention thereby to give lien, then lien exists by force of the contract, and may be enforced under the rules applicable to such liens. * * * A contract made under such circumstances ought to be sustained, unless in violation of express law or contrary to public policy. There was no law in force expressly prohibiting such a contract.”
By reference to the first question contained in the certificate, it will be seen that the contractor who erected the improvements complied with the requirements of the law as to the fixing of the mechanic’s lien, and that said contractor, while said mechanic’s lien was in force, assigned the debt, together with the lien, to a third person, to whom the husband and wife executed a deed of trust upon the homestead, which was privily acknowledged by the wife, and that the husband and wife executed to the assignee certain notes, and that such assignee agreed with the husband and wife to extend the original debt and lien for a period of years. The question propounded was, Did such deed of trust constitute a valid lien upon the homestead? In this case the mechanic’s lien was fixed on the homestead, and the only question involved was as to whether under the contract described between the husband and wife and the as-signee the extension of the debt and lien would invalidate the lien against the homestead. To the question propounded the Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. Under the statute as it then existed the mechanic’s lien given the contractor by law would have ceased to be operative if suit had not been brought to enforce it within 12 months after it was fixed, although the debt secured by it was still valid and might be enforced through a personal judgment. See Acts of 20th Legislature, p. 114,- § 17, of said act. In regard to the liens created by law, irrespective of contract, it was held that it was necessary to enforce them in the time and in the manner required by the statute; while, on the other hand, it was héld that the husband and wife might, by an express contract complying with the requirements of the Constitution, extend the lien so fixed by the contractor, and that it might be enforced in the time and manner specified by the contract. We think this is the full extent of the holding in the cited case. The statute, as it was then and as it is now, and the Constitution require that in order to fix a lien upon *146tile homestead for work and material used thereon the contract shall be in writing, and executed by the wife in the.manner and form required in making a sale and conveyance of a homestead. The statute then required, as it does now, that such' writing executed by the wife must contain the terms of the contract.
The appellees’ counsel urges that it would be unjust, even unconscionable, to deny appel-lees a recovery in this case, since it is insisted the facts show that appellees furnished all the material, paid for all the labor going into the improvements, and that it is admitted that the Herrings only paid $1,049, with interest th'ereon, leaving unpaid on the contract price the amount of $1,200, represented by these two $600 notes. But the Constitution and the statute require certain things to be done and certain steps to be taken before a lien can be fixed on a homestead owned by a married man. The directions are plainly given so that he who advances his money, furnishes his material, or expends his labor may be protected. If he fails to follow the directions, he must bear the consequences. The courts are powerless to help him. It is not a question of equity so much as it is a question of compliance vel non with the constitutional and statutory requirements.
Motion for rehearing is overruled.