Court Opinion

ID: 3273142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 16:41:40.969911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:10:45.280033
License: Public Domain

I dissent from that part of the opinion herein holding that Westmoreland was not the owner of lot 3 at the time he made the contract with Ferguson Lumber Company to furnish the material for the house on lot 3. He was either the owner or the agent of the owner. He was placed in possession of the lot, and the work was started and material furnished prior to the recording of appellant's mortgage. The material lien was therefore prior to the mortgage under many decisions of this court. I am also of the opinion that the rule announced by Judge Thayer in the case mentioned by the majority opinion is the correct rule, and that the appellant was bound to see that the money loaned on the mortgage was actually used in the construction of the building. While we are not bound by the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals construing our statute, still the courts generally, I believe, have followed same until the decision ought to be held to be a rule of property, and at least it ought to be highly persuasive.
I agree with the majority in other respects.