Court Opinion

ID: 9833654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:55:22.90963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:05.609240
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In an opinion heretofore filed in this case we say: “The judgment was but a means of •enforcing the lien, and did not create it. Furniture Co. v. Hotel Co., 81 Tex. 135, 16 S. W. 807. But even if the rendition of the judgment could be held to have created the lien on the two ear loads in favor of Miller •& Vidor Lumber Company from the date of its rendition, still, in order to render appellant’s mortgage void as to it, it must have been a lienholder in good faith. A lien-holder in good faith is one who pays a valuable consideration at the time of acquiring the lien and is without notice of the prior unrecorded mortgage.” From the opinion as a whole we think it is manifest that we did not intend by this paragraph of the opinion to hold that if, by the rendition of the judgment referred to, appellee lumber ■company acquired such a lien as would make it a “creditor” of the Holloday-Shilkee Lumber Company within the purview of article 3328, Revised Civil Statutes, it was necessary for it, 'in order to defeat appellant’s mortgage, to show that it paid a valuable ■consideration for its lien without any notice of appellant’s mortgage. What is said in ■the above quotation from the main opinion in regard to the good faith of the appellee lumber company could only be applicable in -case the rendition of the judgment referred to should be considered as giving said ap-pellee the rights of a “subsequent” lienholder, as distinguished from those of a “creditor” as these terms are used in the statute •before mentioned.
We have carefully considered appellee’s motion for a rehearing and feel constrained to adhere to our former conclusion of the question presented, and the motion is therefore overruled.