Court Opinion

ID: 9827712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:47:47.320967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:35.051345
License: Public Domain

*1097On Rehearing.
In the letter from Wilkirson to Bradford referred to in the original opinion notifying Bradford of his intention to take steps necessary to fix a statutory furnisher’s lien on the lot and building which Thomas has contracted to erect there was no mention made of the notes in controversy, and to that extent the recital in the original opinion was erroneous. But the record does show that prior to the date of the said letter from WIilkirson to Bradford the notes were sent by Wilkir-son from Grandview to one of his employés at Sweetwater with instructions, in effect, not to furnish any more lumber to Thomas on the strength of them as collateral. Upon receipt of that letter appellee; Bradford, was interviewed with reference to the notes, and he then claimed as he did later in his letter to Wilkirson, in effect, that he had made an absolute transfer of the notes to Thomas, and looked to Thomas and Wilkirson, for a completion of the house in accordance with the terms of the contract for its construction.
Appellee had filed an extended motion and argument for a rehearing, which has been carefully considered, and in which he earnestly insists that we erroneously interpreted his pleadings. He insists that his petition alleges facts showing that he transferred the notes to Thomas under and by virtue of an agreement between himself and Thomas and Wil-kirson that Wilkirson should hold the same in trust only to secure the completion of the I building in accordance with the contract of Thomas therefor.
[4] We do not think that contention is correct. But, even though we are mistaken in that conclusion, the error is harmless, since, as held in our original opinion, the evidence fails to support that theory of recovery, but conclusively establishes the fact that the transfer of the notes to Thomas was intended to and did convey the absolute legal title thereto, and thus completely refutes any possible claim that such title passed to Wilkirson in trust only.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
CONNER, C. J., not sitting, serving on writ of error committee at Austin.