Court Opinion

ID: 9834402
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:33:27.464552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:14.623400
License: Public Domain

On .Motion for Rehearing.
The only point raised in appellee’s motion for rehearing which we think requires further notice is the contention that we did not fully set forth the facts with reference to Merrem’s information regarding the trustee’s sale prior to the time he was notified about 10:30 a. m., December 7, 1926, by the sheriff that the sale had already been made. Ap-pellee’s contention in this- regard is that the sheriff testified that in a telephone conversation the previous afternoon he told Merrem that the bank had advertised the property for sale, and that this was not denied by Merrem. We quote the following from the sheriff’s testimony:
“If I remember correctly, I told him the Cameron State Bank had the same land advertised for sale, or was setting up a claim to- it, or, anyway, they had advertised it for sale, setting up some kind of claim to it and had advertised it for sale.”
Merrem testified:
“He (the sheriff) said, ‘I think the Cameron State Bank is claiming a lien on the land.’ * * * I did not know anything about any other lien; it was a big surprise to me. Yes, sir; he told me where I could find out, made suggestions as to who I might communicate with with reference to the claim of the bank. I asked him *976who I could telephone to to find out, and he said either Hr. Hardy or Mr. Morrison; he said W. A. Morrison was the attorney for the bank, and I understood him to say Hardy was the president of the bank, anyway he was one of the officials, so I told him I would call on both or either of these people.”
The Sheriff’s testimony shows that he did not know when the property would be sold under the trust deed; that he had not seen the advertisement, and that his information upon the subject was gained from Mangum, the substitute trustee, some time prior through a conversation in which Mangum stated that he was going to foreclose under the trust deed. It also appears from the sheriff’s testimony that Merrem told him he was not going to Cameron by train, but would leave Yoakum in a ear about 3 a. m., and expected to arrive in time for the memorial company’s sale. This fact the sheriff communicated to Morrison about 9 a. m. and prior to the trustee’s sale. We quote further from Morrison’s testimony:
“We came over here, and the sheriff said— he told me that he had had a communication or wire from Mr. whoever his name is, I think this gentleman here (indicating Merrem); he says it was him; and that he was coming up here to the sale and was going to start at 3 o’clock that morning. I went back and told Mr. Craves. In the meantime he had come over to the courthouse with Mr. Mangum, and we said we would wait' awhile and see if those people were going to come from Yoakum. We waited until 10:25 and.no word came from anybody at Yoakum or from this gentleman or anybody else, and we went and told the sheriff that we were going to sell some land and for him to come out and call up a crowd for us.”
It will thus be seen that the sheriff’s testimony is somewhat uncertain as to exactly what he told Merrem, further than to advise him that the bank was claiming a lien on the property, and directing him to the president and attorney of the bank for further information. It is clear from Merrem’s testimony that he only gathered from his conversation with the sheriff that the bank was claiming a lien and who the president and attorney of the bank were. The testimony of Morrison quoted in our original opinion with reference to the conversation he had with Merrem clearly indicates that the latter had no knowledge that the property was advertised for sale, and he was seeking to obtain from Morrison exactly what the status of the bank’s claim was. It is also clear from Morrison’s testimony that he did not advise Mer-rem that the property had been advertised for sale and there is no intimation anywhere in the testimony that Merrem had any knowledge that the sale would take place on December 7th. It is further to be noted that Morrison made an engagement to meet Mer-rem at the former’s office on the following morning, the only 'purpose for which was an adjustment of the bank’s lien; and while Morrison’s testimony is to the effect that this engagement was for 8 o’clock in the morning, and he presumed Merrem would arrive by train, he knew by 10 o’clock and prior to the sale that Merrem was coming by car. The sale was made about 10:30 a. m., and it was about that time, or at any rate not later than 11 a. m., that Merrem telephoned the sheriff and was then advised that the bank had already sold the property.
As stated in our original opinion, only slight circumstances are necessary to set aside a sale of this character, where the consideration paid is grossly inadequate. It is not essential that fraud should exist, and we have not found, nor do we now find, that the record presents a case of fraud or bad faith. The testimony quoted from, however, speaks for itself. In our original opinion we refrained from comment thereon, and we pre-termit comment here.
Accident or mistake is ¡sufficient where gross inadequacy of consideration exists to set aside a sale. Nor is it always essential in such cases that the party claiming the relief has in every respect met that degree of diligence which ordinarily the law would require.
Appellee contends that its attorney made no misstatement to Merrem, but answered all his inquiries correctly; that it was under no duty to give any information to Merrem; and that the answers given met every obligation the law requires. We do not controvert this strictly legal view of the situation. The facts remain that Merrem had no knowledge of the impending sale; that he was making a bona fide effort to get the facts; that his efforts, however imperfect, were unsuccessful in the essential element that a sale would take place the following day; and that he was then in position to and doubtless would have protected his clients’ interest had he been successful in ascertaining this essential fact.
Again: If the memorial company had liad actual knowledge of the bank’s lien and had kept track of the record proceedings in regard thereto, it would have discovered the foreclosure suit of the bank and would have been warranted in assuming that the bank had elected to proceed by judicial foreclosure and not by trustee’s sale. This certainly would have furnished ample excuse for failure on the part of the memorial company to examine the bulletin board for notices of sale so long at least as the bank’s suit was pending; and since that suit was not dismissed until December 4th, the memorial company would have been excused from making any examination of the bulletin board for sales prior to the January sales’ day. It certainly was not incumbent on the memorial company, assuming that it had kept track of tbe bank’s foreclosure proceeding, to make an examina» *977tion of the bulletin board as soon as the case was dismissed to ascertain whether several weeks prior to the dismissal'the trustee had advertised the property for sale at the December sales’ day.
Under all the facts and circumstances, we think a case for equitable relief is presented both as to the memorial company and Mrs. Gandy; especially so in view of the gross inadequacy of consideration and the total absence of injury to the bank in awarding such relief.
We are not by this discussion receding in any way from our original holding that so long as the bank’s foreclosure suit was pending it must be held to an election of remedies by foreclosure and could not simultaneously foreclose through trustee’s sale; and that therefore the trustee’s sale was void or voidable at the option of Mrs. Gandy, or the memorial company. We adhere to that holding, as well as to the other holdings in our original opinion.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.