Court Opinion

ID: 9833019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:22:32.285636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:57.747050
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
After mature consideration of appellants’ forceful motion for rehearing, in which is cited the recent holding of the Commission of Appeals in Little v. Shields, 63 S.W.(2d) 363, that was not extant when our original opinion herein was rendered, we have concluded that our former holding to the effect that the Citizens State Bank was in no better position than the prior bank, hence the homestead defense was just as available against it, perhaps went too far, under the Shields Case, and that such question was rather one of fact; the appellants so contended in the trial court, raising it as such by both pleading and testimony, and requested its submission to the jury under this inquiry:
“Special Issue No. 3: At the time Citizens State Bank of Ganado, Texas, took title to the $1250 renewal note and liens securing its payment, did its President, Mr. T. N. Mauritz, know that J. M. Toas, acting as the agent of and for plaintiff, had purchased the land in question from A. A. Egg, for plaintiff, and had paid for said land with money of plaintiff?”
The motion for rehearing will therefore be granted and the cause will be remanded for another trial, for the refusal of the court to submit the quoted issue.
Rehearing granted, judgment reversed, cause remanded.