Court Opinion

ID: 9834121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:18:45.854294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:11.793953
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
.The statement that the holders of the liens and the debts secured by them had no notice of the deed of trust of appellant when the debts to them were created and the deeds of trust given is challenged by appellant, who states that “the entire record” discloses actual knowledge upon the part of James E. Halpin of the existence of appellant’s deed of trust. To uphold the broad statement made by appellant, he refers to a receipt of Halpin of the deed of trust. A reference to the receipt falls to substantiate the statement made by appellant. The receipt was given for an agreement of settlement between Smith and the association, and a deed of trust given by the trustees of the association to L. J- Smith and E. H. McVey and notes secured thereby. Appellant sued on a note given to him alone, and sought to foreclose a lien evidenced by a deed of trust given to Samuel R. Ereet, as trustee, to secure appellant in his debt. The receipt does not show that the deed of trust given to Freet, as trustee, to secure appellant’s debt was given to Halpin. In the proposal dated May 8, 1920, a note and deed of trust is described but not identified as the one named in the petition. It is not claimed that Harry Rogers had any notice, either actual or constructive, of appellant’s debt or lien. At the time the proposal was made, appellant agreed and acknowledged that the debt of Halpin was secured by a lien superior to his^ and no claim of the superiority of his lien was made to Halpin until made through this suit. Harry Rogers owns the claim of Halpin against the association. Hal-pin swore that appellant never told him that he (McVey) was claiming a first lien on the property, and that he never heard of it until the suit was filed.
Harry Rogers swore that McVey never, prior to the institution'of this suit, brought to his knowledge in any way that he had a debt against the association, and never at any time before the suit did he have knowledge that McVey had a deed of trust on the property. The receipt given by McVey to Halpin for. the papers held by him did not describe the deed of trust sued on, but one giveh to secure a debt held by Smith for $33,000 and one held by McVey for $9,916.35. The deed of trust sued on was given to secure one note given by Smith Construction Company to Will A. Morriss for $20,000, one note given by the Association to L. J. Smith for $33,000, and one to McVey for $9,916.35. However that may be, Rogers had no knowledge of the existence of appellant’s debt or deed of trust until after the suit was brought, and Halpin swore that neither he nor McVey deemed the deed of trust held by the latter- to be .a first lien on the property. Appellant did not claim that it was a first lien until he instituted this suit. It is ad'mitted in the motion for rehearing that Rogers did not have notice of the existence of appellant’s debt and trust deed, and, iff Rogers did not have such notice when he bought Halpin’s claim, he is an innocent purchaser as to that claim.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.