Court Opinion

ID: 9827696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:46:52.720653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:34.580245
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The defendant in error, Gilchrist, insists in his motion for a rehearing that we were in error in hffiding that the testimony offered by him upon the trial did not make out a prima facie case against Carson for the foreclosure of his lien.
The statute only gives a subcontractor a lien for any balance which the owner may owe the original contractor at the time he receives notice from the subcontractor. It devolves upon the latter, as a part of the essentials in making out his case, to prove that 'at the time the notice was given the owner owed the original contractor a balance to which he might thereafter have recourse, and for the payment of which he was entitled to a lien. Fullenwider v. Longmoor, 73 Tex. 480, 11 S. W. 500; 8 Ency. Ev. 559, and cases there cited.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.