Court Opinion

ID: 9831788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:21:34.780708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:37.974409
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
On rehearing appellees have cited Owen v. City of Navasota, 44 Tex. 521, Tierney v. Frazier, 57 Tex. 440, Rippetoe v. Dwyer, 65 Tex. 705, and Harrison v. Sharpe (Tex. Civ. App.) 210 S. W. 734, as holding against our conclusion:
“That the sale of the boat after the judgment was paid was absolutely void, no matter how ignorant or innocent the sheriff may. have been in making the sale or Adams in buying the boat.”
We do not so construe the cases cited. In Owen v. City of Navasota the Supreme Court said:
“If the judgment had in fact been satisfied ih full .prior to the sale, there are cases of high authority which hold that, the sale is absolutely void, and confers no title on the purchaser, although there was nothing of record to show the satisfaction, and the purchaser bought in perfect good faith. Hunter v. Stevenson, 1 Hill (S. C.) 415; Wood v. Colvin, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 566; Johnson v. Caldwell, 1 Conn. 622; Neilson v. Neilson, 5 Barb. 575; Myers v. Cochran, 29 Ind. 256; Trigg v. Ross, 35 Mo. 165.
“It is not our purpose to express any opinion on this proposition, as in this case it is not necessary that we should do so. ,In its terms it applies only to cases of judgment satisfied in full, and it is believed that its extension to other cases, apparently within its reach, has not been found. Walker v. MeKnight, 15 B. Mon. 476; Freeman on Judgments, § 480.
“In questions of this nature, affecting titles to lands, it is proper to follow in the beaten path of authority. But we are not disposed to go beyond the authorities in declaring public sales .absolutely void because of matters not apparent of record.”
In discussing the proposition in that case, the Supreme Court said that “the distinction between a satisfied judgment and one which is stayed, so far as it affects the authority to sell pending the sale, is not very apparent,” but distinguishes the facts of that case from the facts of a case where the judgment has been paid. That case was cited by the Supreme Court in Tierney y. Frazier, supra, the court saying:
“This court has heretofore declined to go beyond the authorities in holding executions void by reason of matters not appearing of. record. Owen v. City of Navasota, 44 Tex. 521, 522.”
From what was said by the court in the two cases just cited, it would seem that, had the issue been before them, they would have followed the proposition stated by them in Owen v. City of Navasota. On its facts, Tierney v. Frazier is entirely different from the facts in the case at bar. In that case Tierney brought suit against the sheriff for damages, alleging that he had wrongfully levied an execution after the judgment had been satisfied. It seems that Tierney exhibited to .the sheriff receipts against the judgment. The court said:
“The judgment against Tierney was several dollars in excess of the amount of the receipt which he held, and the question of its sufficiency to show a satisfaction in full of the judgment would reasonably have .suggested itself to the deputy sheriff. * * * With the lights before us, we are not prepared to say that the execution was invalidated by reason of the payment made and receipts given. But, however this may be, we are satisfied that the deputy sheriff was legally justified in declining to pass upon the genuineness and validity of the receipts held by Tierney, and in proceeding to make a levy, and that by so doing he did not subject himself' to any action by Tierney for damages.”
Rippetoe v. Dwyer has no bearing on this case. The issue there was whether the notes on which the suit had been brought were *293paid before judgment. On the issue in that case the court said:
“If Rippetoe had knowledge that the debt which Pressley once owed had been fully paid, then he can stand on no higher ground than would the person in whose name the action was prosecuted to final judgment. It is true, as between the plaintiff in that action and Press-ley, the judgment rendered is conclusive of the rights of themselves, for they were parties to it, and must be bound by it, unless it be in some lawful method set aside; but, not so, as to Dwyer, who was not actually a party to that action, and who is sought to be affected by a rule which cannot exist in this case, if the facts alleged by Dwyer be true.”
Harrison v. Sharpe involved the validity of a judgment and sale thereunder whore the sufficiency of the citation was at issue.
Though we have given the very able argument of appellees’ counsel our most careful consideration, we cannot escape the conclusion that we correctly disposed of this case on original submission. The motion for rehearing is therefore in all things overruled.