Court Opinion

ID: 9858234
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:18:56.152991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:38.709656
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
In his motion for rehearing appellant asserts that regardless of whether appellee is individually liable on the note in question appellant has a cause of action against ap-pellee under his allegation that he is entitled to an implied vendor’s lien on property conveyed by appellant to appellee. In his petition appellant alleges that the note endorsed by Rags to Riches, Inc. was delivered by appellee to appellant as part of the purchase price of certain described real property conveyed by appellant to appellee.
Appellant’s contention is without ’merit. The fact that appellant accepted the endorsed note of Paskel A. Jones as part of the consideration of the conveyance to appellee raises a presumption that appellant waived any implied vendor’s lien. The presumption unless rebutted will establish the fact of waiver by appellant. Westmoreland v. Masterson, Tex.Civ.App., 79 S.W.2d 655; Strain v. Martin, Tex.Civ.App, 183 S.W.2d 246. Though a presumption does not have the effect of shifting the burden of proof in a suit, it does place on the opposite party the burden of introducing evidence to overcome the prima facie case established by the presumption. See 23 Tex. ' Jur.2d 105, and cases cited under Note No. 1; and 23 Tex.Jur.2d 135, and cases cited under Note No. 14.
*391In the case now before us appellant neither pled nor proved any facts in rebuttal of the presumption raised by his own pleadings.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.