Court Opinion

ID: 9828196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:11:57.777671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:45.462049
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[2] As noted in the original opinion, the trial court found as a fact that the banks collecting the two notes paid by Braun had no authority from the plaintiff or from the Toyah Valley Live Stock Company to transfer or assign them. The court further found that Hickman did not know of the indorsement of the notes to Braun and believed that by the payments made to the banks the two notes had been discharged and the land relieved of so much of the incumbrance against it. Impliedly, at least, those findings negative any consent by Hickman that Braun should be subrogated to the lien given to secure those notes. In Fievel v. Zuber, 67 Tex. 275, 3 S. W. 273, our Supreme Court said:
“If any subrogation took place, therefore, it must have been by agreement of parties. That this can be accomplished by a payment made in accordance with an express understanding between the debtor, the creditor, and a third party, to the effect that if such third party pays the debt he may hold the security for his reimbursement, there can be no doubt. Dillon v. Kauffman & Runge, 58 Tex. 696; Flanagan v. Cushman, 48 Tex. 241. It is also recognized law that a payment upon a like agreement between a stranger and the creditor will have the same effect. In both these cases, however, this would seem a virtual assignment, without reference to the doctrine of subrogation. But up*882on the proposition that a substitution can be brought about by a contract between debtor and a volunteer, to which, the creditor is not a party, the law is not quite so clear. That it cannot be done as to a part of the debt, or in any manner to affect the rights of the creditor to his prejudice, does not admit of doubt. But there are numerous decisions which recognize the doctrine that, if a third party pay the entire debt in pursuance of an agreement between him and the debtor, upon his doing so he shall be subrogated to the creditor’s rights, the agreement will be given effect, and such third party will stand in the place of the creditor as to all persons interested in the property or the security.”
As Hickman never transferred the notes to Braun, and never agreed that Braun should be subrogated to the lien securing the same, it follows necessarily that they were paid so far as he was concerned, and therefore the lien in favor of the other three notes retained by Hickman is superior to the lien claimed by Braun. This conclusion of itself is sufficient to sustain the judgment of the trial court, independent of the further fact, noted in the original opinion, that there was an absence of any proof that the value of the land upon which the foreclosure was decreed was insufficient to satisfy all of the notes.
Accordingly the motion for rehearing is overruled.