Court Opinion

ID: 9828603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:33:06.049167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:51.022206
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellee Knappie in his motion for rehearing urges that we erred in directing that, after payment in full of the claims of Continental State Bank and Mosher Manufactur*611ing Company, the balance of the fund in ■controversy should be apportioned between him and appellee Barnett, and in this contention we concede he is correct. The trial court found as a fact that the transfers to Knappie and Barnett were both executed February 12, 1910, as stated in our opinion, but made no affirmative finding as to actual priority.
,[S] The trial court did, however, direct in the judgment below that Knappie should be first paid in full before any sum should be paid to Barnett. There is no statement of facts in the record, and it is the well-settled rule in such cases that, in order to sustain the judgment of the trial court, we shall presume the court had before it facts sufficient to support its judgment, or, in the case at bar, the priority of the Knappie claim, although omitted from the court’s finding. Ellis v. National Exchange Bank, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 619, 86 S. W. 776; Jarrell v. Sproles, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 387, 49 S. W. 904; Malone v. Fisher, 71 S. W. 996; Drake v. Davidson, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 184, 66 S. W. 889; Maes v. Thomas, 140 S. W. 846.
It is accordingly ordered that the judgment •be reformed, and the court below, in accordance with the view here expressed, be directed that, after payment in full of the ■claims of Continental State Bank and Mosh-er Manufacturing Company, the claim of ap-pellee Knappie be next paid in full, if there be sufficient funds; any balance to be applied to the claim of said Barnett.