Court Opinion

ID: 9770866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:23:32.52545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:21.447720
License: Public Domain

*715On Rehearing.
Appellant has filed a strong motion for rehearing asserting that in our original opinion we are in conflict with the holding of the San Antonio Court of Civil Appeals in the case of Freedman & Mellinger v. Maier, 238 S.W. 1013, 1014, writ dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The Court in the Freedman case holds: “This law obviously was passed for the protection and benefit of the creditors and they would have their right to enforce the same in any sale. At most, they would have a lien on the goods. Such a lien, if it did exist, by the terms of the law as a statutory lien, would no more prevent the owner from selling than any other lien thereon would inhibit it. * * * The Bulk Sales Law, for the protection of the creditors, may properly be said to be read into every contract for the sale of goods and merchandise in bulk. That is all. It is not to be read therein for the benefit dr protection of purchasers against their failure to make proper reservations. They must look out for themselves in making their contracts, having knowledge of the law in reference to such sales, and should protect themselves by contract, verbal or written. The same rule of law of reason does not apply to purchasers as it does to creditors. In such sales the creditors would perhaps have no' actual notice of such sales, in order to protect themselves; whereas, the purchaser is in a position when he makes the contract to write in the contract the -requirements of the law, and, if not prudent and diligent, can claim no protection of the law made for the benefit of creditors.”
As we view our original opinion, nothing therein 'holds that the sale by appellee Ley-sen to appellant Ashton was void or voidable “because of the Bulk ■ Sales Law.” What we held and intended to hold was that appellee as seller agreed to pay all outstanding obligations and to transfer the business and stock of goods “free and clear of any and all encumbrances except those named in the contract.”
It was undisputed that at the time ap-pellee demanded that appellant complete the sale and pay the agreed consideration, there were outstanding accounts owing by appellee-seller covering merchandise which was a part of the stock in the business, being sold.
Unless all debts had been paid or appellant furnished the affidavit required by the Bulk Sales Law stating that all debts had been paid, appellee would not 'have been complying with the contract by transferring the stock of goods free and clear of liens.
It was our purpose to hold in our original opinion that appellant was not required to accept the stock of goods charged with the statutory lien created by the Bulk Sales Law, notwithstanding his contract to the contrary, and that he was justified in refusing, to go through with his contract without compliance by appellee with the Bulk Sales Law. If such holding is in conflict with 'the Freedman-Maier case, -supra, then we are intentionally in conflict therewith.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.