Court Opinion

ID: 9827815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:52:27.325488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:37.235964
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Both parties filed motions for rehearing. That of the bank presents nothing new, and calls for no comment. The Radford Grocery Company calls attention to the fact that -its deed of trust provides that it is contemplated that Graham & Co. would thereafter become indebted to the grocery company in further sums, and that the deed of trust was to be security for the payment of such future indebtedness. Attention is called to the further fact that the claim of the grocery company- embraces a balance of-$1,470, for goods, wares, and merchandise sold to Graham & Co. subsequent to May 9, 1928. It is insisted priority should be accorded to the deed of trust in so far as it secures this balance.
The grocery company is in the attitude of seeking to postpone the prior unregistered deed of trust of the bank to the company’s deed of trust upon the theory that the company is a creditor for value without notice. The burden of proving these facts rests upon the grocery company. Holland v. Nance, 102 Tex. 177, 114 S. W. 346; Ryle v. Davidson (Tex. Civ. App.) 116 S. W. 823; Keller v. Lindow (Tex. Civ. App.) 133 S. W. 304; Wilkerson v. Ward (Tex. Civ. App.) 137 S. W. 158; Bledsoe v. Haney (Tex. Civ. App.) 139 S. W. 612.
As to this item of $1,470 it was thus incumbent upon the grocery company to show that, at the time the sales were made upon open account and the credit extended, it was without notice of the prior unrecorded deed of trust of the bank. This the evidence does *1083not show. The evidence shows that at the time the grocery company acquired its deed of trust on May 9, 1928, it was without notice of the prior unrecorded deed of trust of the bank. Further than this the evidence upon the issue of notice is silent. It is therefore, upon the record here presented, not entitled to the additional relief sought in its motion for rehearing.
Both the motions are overruled.