Court Opinion

ID: 9830632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:20:21.560548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:25.027682
License: Public Domain

On Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee presents insistent motions for rehearing, but we yet think we should adhere to our conclusion as stated in the opinion reversing the judgment. While it is true that, as between Baker, Robertson, and the trustee in bankruptcy, Park, the title to the $3,100 in second vendor’s lien notes was properly vested in the trustee, yet we did not undertake to decide, and could not decide, as is indeed conceded, the relative rights as between the trustee and Addicks, who received the second vendor’s lien notes prior to the adjudication in bankruptcy. Addicks may be in position to insist upon his right to collect the second vendor’s lien notes and apply the proceeds upon the debt resting upon the Winston Building in Morgan secured by Robertson, or possibly Robertson, as against all parties, might present the question of a right to have Addicks first resort to the security afforded by the $3,106 vendor’s lien notes before foreclosing his lien upon the building named. We do not say that the facts are such as, to authorize any such course, but we do say that the parties before the court and the pleadings and evidence now before us in no event authorize the determination of Addick’s rights as between him and the trustee, or any of the other parties herein.
We accordingly overrule the motion for rehearing.