Court Opinion

ID: 9830679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:22:42.678312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:25.511623
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The motion for rehearing consists almost entirely of attacks upon the conclusions of fact of this court. They are amply sustained by the statement of facts. We notice a few of them.
It is contended that F. M. Maddox did not borrow the money, which is directly in the face of the record. F. M. Maddox testified: “The consideration of the deed from Elizabeth Maddox to G. D. Hume was this: My brother was in Washington. He telegraphed me for some money. I didn’t have the money. I had to raise it, and I got my daughter to convey that property to Mr. Geo. L. Hume to secure him for indorsing my note, and he afterwards paid the note. That was the consideration. The cash was sent to my brother. She did not mortgage it to secure any one. She conveyed it to get money for her uncle, and conveyed it at my request. Mr. Hume paid the note of $300. That was the only consideration Geo. D. Hume ever paid my daughter for the land.” If F. M. Maddox did not borrow the money, but made a sale of his daughter’s land to Hume, he certainly would not have signed a note and had it indorsed by Hume and then raised money on it. The evidence was positive that F. M. Maddox borrowed the money for his brother, and that the debt incurred was secured by a deed executed by his daughter. The following questions were propounded to Maddox and answers given as indicated: “Q. You and Mr. Hume signed the note? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the paper was executed by your-daughter at your request, to secure that loan? A. Yes, sir; and he paid the note-afterwards.” In the face of that uncontro-verted testimony and the further statement of the witness that “the understanding was, of course, if I paid the note then they would convey back the property,” it is gravely contended that this court “erred in its statement that the father of Elizabeth Maddox desired to borrow money from Geo. D. Hume, and he executed a note, because the evidence-shows that F. M. Maddox, the father of Elizabeth Maddox, did not borrow any money from Geo. D. Hume.” Whether the money was obtained directly from Hume, or, through his indorsement of the note, from a bank, the fact remains that Maddox borrowed $300, and the mortgage, in form a deed, was executed by the daughter of Maddox to Hume to secure payment of the borrowed money.
[6] This court did not err in concluding' that there was not one word of testimony tending to show that Hume ever asserted any ownership in the land. It is true that the land was assessed against him, but it does not appear that it was assessed by him, and. *937in the report from the collector’s office as to the payment of taxes there is nothing to indicate that Hume paid the taxes. The taxes may have been paid by Le Compte or other claimants. If Hume did assess the land, however, and pay taxes on it, those acts did not change the mortgage into a deed.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.