Court Opinion

ID: 9832653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:05:10.392434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:49.926067
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant has presented a very interesting •and able argument in behalf of the motion, bo was the brief a strong and able presentation of his theory, but we thought then and still think the disposition of this case is' controlled by the ease of Bunn v. City of Laredo (Tex. Com. App.) 245 S. W. 426.
In referring to the reserved right in the city to forfeit the title in case of default, we did not mean to say that it was all expressed and written out in the deed, but that the ordinance of June 15, 1888, of the city of Laredo (see paragraphs 3 and 4 of the trial -court’s findings), being the basis of the title, should be looked to and considered contemporaneously as a part of the contract the same as though written out at length therein, and hence we have so treated it. This right of forfeiture was a part of the execu-tory contract for sale of the property. Any one purchasing that property with the obvious reservation of the legal title in the deed, showing an unpaid, outstanding, unreleased purchase-money note, was charged with notice of the ordinance by which the sale was made and the rights of the city, the vendor. No presumption of payment .would arise here, because the city of Laredo. and its *348records were so accessible and convenient, it was tbe first place to which the purchaser was charged with notice to inquire and look to; and under such facts, with the written records in existence, the purchaser was guilty of lack of ordinary care and negligence in failing to investigate, and therefore fails to show such a standing that a presumption of payment may be indulged in, or' that a court of equity should be called upon to give relief.
The motion is overruled.