Court Opinion

ID: 9833036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:23:32.38232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:58.261666
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees are very strenuous in their contention that Mrs. Baker signed a deed that was not the one she intended to sign, in that it fails to provide for semiannual payments of interest. The notary public testified that he fully explained the terms of the deed to her after reading it over to her, that he called her attention to all the conditions with reference to payments. He stated that, when he reached the part in regard to interest, she objected to it because it should have provided that interest be paid semiannually, instead of annually, and refused to sign until the matter was fixed. The officer then called Ward, told him about the objections, and he said he would give her a written agreement outside the deed to X)ay the interest semiannually to avoid rewriting the papers. The notary public then asked Mrs. Baker to converse with Ward over the telephone, which she did, and seemed satisfied, and then signed the deed. Aft-erwards Ward gave the notary public the written agreement to pay the interest semiannually, and it was placed with the notes and deed, and they were deposited in the First State Bank, as Mrs. Baker had directed, and they remained there a week or ten days. The cashier testified that Mrs. Baker and Ward came together fo'r the papers, and, after they had arranged everything as to interest and other matters amicably, the papers were delivered to them, Ward getting the deed and three notes and Mrs. Baker the note for $12,000. Thomas Baker then indorsed the notes. It appeared from a memorandum that one of the notes was indorsed to Powell, and two to Landry, and that out of the $500 note indorsed to Landry he was to pay Powell $125 and Mrs. Baker $125.
Mrs. Baker admitted that Ward agreed to make it all right in regard to interest, and that she signed the deed with full knowledge that semiannual interest was not mentioned in it. She was not deceived about it, and does not claim that any one represented that semiannual interest was provided for in the deed. She afterwards saw the notes and indorsed them. She knew fully the contents of each one of them. The notary public was the witness for appellees, and he showed conclusively that she fully understood the deed and all the matters connected with it, and that he fully explained everything to her. No decision of any court has ever required a broader explanation than was given by the notary public, because the explanation laid everything bare to her that the notary public could possibly have known. Mrs. Baker understood fully what she was signing.
The certificate of acknowledgment of Mrs. Baker to her deed to Ward is attacked for the first time in the motion for rehearing, on the ground that it does not state that she was examined privily and apart from her husband. Since this attack was made, appellants have applied for and obtained from the district judge who tried the cause an order correcting the record, in which it is recited that the certificate of acknowledgment was improperly copied from the orig*625inal deed which was in evidence, and that the certificate was in strict conformance to the statute. A certified copy of the certificate of acknowledgment was sent up to this court. In this case the statement of facts was made up hy the trial judge, the parties having failed to agree, and evidently in copying the deed into the statement of facts the words, “and having been examined by me privily and apart from her husband,” were omitted. No decision has gone to the extent of holding that the rights of a litigant could be destroyed, by such clerical omission, and that no one has the power to make the correction in the record. In the case of Dorsey v. Olive, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 568, 94 S. W. 413, there was an attempt to substitute an entirely different statement of facts in which additional facts were embodied which were not found in the original statement. This court held that it could not consider the last statement of facts, stating: “The court had no power, after the time prescribed by law, to approve and make a part of the record a statement of ■facts to amend or supersede one certified and filed within the time.” Under the facts of that case, the decision was correct, but the principle would be oppressive and unreasonable if carried to the extent of holding that documentary evidence incorrectly copied into a statement of facts cannot be corrected. In the case of Railway v. Lane, 79 Tex. 643, 15 S. W. 477, 16 S. W. 18, a contract was altogether omitted from the record, and no effort was made to have it inserted in the record, and the court refused to consider a contract which was not in the record, and the court on rehearing held that application should have been made for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial judge to perfect the statement of facts.
The case of Boggess v. Harris, 90 Tex. 476, 39 S. W. 565, seems to be authority for the district judge to correct a clerical error in a statement of facts, and make it speak the truth. In that ease it was alleged that certain things had been inserted in the statement of facts after it had been approved by the trial judge, and he was permitted to eliminate them. There was no question of fraud in that case. Appellee cannot in the face of the certificate of the trial judge claim that there was any defect in the form of the certificate, and should not be permitted to reap an advantage from a clerical omission in the record. There is no conflict whatever between this decision and former opinions of this court.
The real consideration of the deed was fully explained to Mrs. Baker, and even under the Blume v. White decision the explanation was full and complete. In that case ■the notary knowingly perpetrated a fraud, and White was present and knew of the fraud. Appellees in the case now at bar proved a full explanation, and that there was no fraud' upon the part of the officer who took the acknowledgment.
There is nothing in our former opinion in conflict with the decisions in Kopke v. Votaw, 95 S. W. 15, and Stringfellow v. Braselton, 117 S. W. 204, except as hereinafter indicated. In those cases it was held that, no matter how well acquainted the married woman may be with the transaction involving the execution of the deed, the officer must explain the deed to her. In the first case the acknowledgment was defective in not stating that the deed was explained by the officer. That portion of our opinion in conflict with this is withdrawn as .hereinafter indicated. In the last case cited it was held that the fraud of the notary could not be imputed to the vendee, unless the latter was cognizant of the fraud, and, further, that it was the duty of the officer to explain the deed to the married woman, even though she knew all about it. We find no case of Johnson v. Taylor, 60 Tex. 365, which is cited by appel-lees, but suppose reference is made to Johnson v. Taylor, 60 Tex. 360, which lends no aid or comfort to appellees’ contentions, and the decision of this court in no wise conflicts with it. The other case cited by ap-pellees as conflicting with our opinion herein is Langton v. Marshall, 59 Tex. 296, in which it is held: “By the statute the duty is imposed upon the officer to fully explain to the married woman the instrument which she is thus called upon to acknowledge. This contemplates that the officer will act in the matter as her adviser, and so explain to her the instrument that she may comprehend its true import and meaning.” That decision fully sustains the decision of this court, except as to that part hereinafter eliminated. The case of Norton v. Davis, 83 Tex. 32, 18 S. W. 430, is in regard to acknowledgment defective in form, and the testimony offered to supply the defect showed that the instrument was not explained properly to the married woman.
That part of the original opinion herein which holds that although 'the officer had not fully explained the deed, if Mrs. Baker knew all about it from other sources, it would bind her, is in conflict with other decisions, as herein indicated, and is withdrawn. It was unnecessary to the decision of the case. With that exception we adhere to our former opinion.
The motions for rehearing and to certify and to strike out order are overruled.