Court Opinion

ID: 9832422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:54:09.550017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:46.706194
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[4] We conclude, after further study of this case, that we erred in reversing the judgment below; We have no reason to change our opinion as to the proof of possession, especially since the testimony concerning such possession rested entirely, upon plaintiff’s testimony. Oarothers v. Finley, 209 S. W. 801, writ refused; Thomas v. Saunders, 150 S. W. 768; Turner v. Grobe, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 554, 59 S. W. 583; Coats v. Elliott, 23 Tex. 613; Pridgen v. Walker, 40 Tex. 136. But we believe that the judgment must be affirmed upon the proof by Ward that the Maud Oil & Gas Company had notice of the existence of the contract between Stewart and Ward when they received the lease from Ward. If they did have such notice, and the, evidence as to this feature .seems uncontra-dicted, they had notice of Stewart’s claim. Therefore the Maud Oil & Gas Company had notice. If it had such notice, defendant Aurelius did take the transfer of such lease charged with such notice. National Oil & *866Pipeline Co. v. Teel, 95 Tex. 586, 68 S. W. 979.
Therefore the Judgment heretofore rendered will be set aside, and the judgment below will be in all things affirmed.
This disposition of the case does not make it necessary to further consider our ruling as to appellee’s cross-assignment of error asserting error in the trial court because of a failure to admit in evidence the lis pendens notice filed. But it is proper for us to note that article 6840, V. S. Tex. Civ. Stats., reads as follows:
“Such notice of pendency shall not be deemed constructive notice, but merely a memorandum that shall refer all intending purchasers and incumbrancers to an examination of the court records and pleadings to determine whether there is in fact a lis pendens concerning the real estate in question, and it shall be effective for such purpose from the time of its filing.”
This apparently makes the lis pendens no* tice operative from the time of its filing. But we will not consider that question further.
The judgment is affirmed in all things.