Court Opinion

ID: 5005863
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-01 01:58:59.272087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:16.064161
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The fact that appellants did nothing to induce appellee to purchase the Dr. Spiller notes clearly distinguishes this case from Little v. Shields (Tex. Com. App.) 63 S.W.(2d) 363, and Bernstein v. Hibbs (Tex. Civ. App.) 284 S. W. 234, with which appellee, in its motion for rehearing, insists we are in conflict. Had appellants induced appellee to purchase the Dr. Spiller notes on a representation that the notes were valid, then appellee could have invoked against appellants the principle of equitable estoppel, recognized and enforced in the cases cited supra. The principle of equitable estoppel was recognized by this court in Judge v. Shaboub, 57 S.W.(2d) 613, 616, where we said: “We think these facts support the conclusion of the trial court that appellants were estopped to assert their claim of homestead against the deed of trust lien. In Burnett v. Atteberry, 105 Tex. 119, 145 S. W. 582, 5S7, our Supreme Court quoted with approval the rule that ‘he who has been silent as to his alleged rights when he ought in good faith to have spoken, shall not be heard » * * when he ought to be silent.’ In Garrett v. lvatz, 23 S.W.(2d) 436, 438, Judge Looney, speaking for the Dallas Court of Civil Appeals, said: ‘The doctrine is also well settled that, where a void lien emerges from an illegal transaction, such as the one involved in this controversy, the maker will be'estopped to set -up its invalidity where he has induced a stranger to become its purchaser on representations that asserted its validity.” See *205Buchanan v. Burnett, 102 Tex. 492, 119 S. W. 1141, 132 Am. St. Rep. 900; Cain v. Bonner (Tex. Civ. App.) 149 S. W. 702; Melcher v. Higbee (Tex. Civ. App.) 165 S. W. 47S, 481; Moore v. Beakley (Tex. Com. App.) 215 S. W. 957; Baxter v. Baxter (Tex. Civ. App.) 225 S. W. 204; Farmers’ State Bank v. Welch (Tex. Civ. App.) 279 S. W. 481; Bernstein v. Hibbs (Tex. Civ. App.) 284 S. W. 234; Barron v. Theophilakos (Tex. Civ. App.) 13 S.W.(2d) 739.”
As appellants did not induce appellee to purchase the notes, the case of Harrington v. H. B. Claflin & Co., cited in our original opinion, is absolutely on all fours with the facts of this case supporting our conclusion that appellee “was not a holder in good faith.” It follows that the motion for rehearing, the motion to certify, and the motion for oral argument should be overruled, which is accordingly the order of this court.