Court Opinion

ID: 9829368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:15:32.980659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:00.451724
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
This court stated that appellant bought the land at the trustee’s sale, and based the finding on the testimony of Hertzberg, its attorney, and Albers, its vice president and secretary. The latter said:
“When we bought the property in, we either had to carry it on the books as real estate, or carry it in the way of loan. We then made a deed to Mr. Harms, and took his note for $3,000, as a matter of convenience for carrying it on the books as a loan instead of carrying it as real estate.”
Again, he swore in regard to the pretended sale to Harms:
“The property still belonged to the Alamo Trust Company.”
He also stated that neither Harms nor Bahr had any interest in the land. This court was mistaken in stating that Harms and Bahr bought in good faith. It seems that they did not buy at all. That conclusion is not objected to by appellant, but the conclusion that appellant bought in good faith at trustee’s sale is objected to, and we withdraw that finding, which leaves appellant in the attitude of claiming that a deed of trust given by a vendee on land for which the purchase money has not been paid, and on which is held a valid vendor’s lien, is superior to that vendor’s lien. Of course no authority is or could be offered to sustain such a proposition. To so hold would destroy a line of precedents dating back to the foundation of the Texas Republic.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.