Court Opinion

ID: 9831631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:15:27.580591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:36.614937
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In our original opinion, we expressly stated that, “The appeal centers on the construction of, and the effect to be given to, the various instruments of record, which form the basis of appellee’s said note and deed of trust”, thus demonstrating that ap-pellee, at the time of the loan transaction, knew nothing other than the recorded instruments affecting the liens and the arrangement of homesteads by G. G. Glasgow and his father, J. W. Glasgow. Ap-pellee knew that the Glasgows were living upon the respective lots—85 x 272.6 and 75 x 272.6 feet—as their homesteads, and was charged with knowledge of all instruments of record in the chain of title. The extent of the liens transferred to appellee and which form the basis of its note and deed of trust, as they affect G. G. Glasgow’s homestead (85 x. 272.6 feet) is the dominant question in this appeal. If the liens, when they were created, extended over both lots, then the question is: May the owner of the lots and the lien-holders release one homestead and transfer the existing liens against it to another’s home-' stead, thus pyramiding the indebtedness and liens on the latter’s homestead?
Appellee concedes that, at the inception of their creation, the liens forming the indebtedness sued on spread over the entire 160 x 272.6-foot lot; if that be true, the lien on J. W. Glasgow’s homestead cannot be subsequently released and the lien transferred to the homestead of G. G. Glasgow. Each of the homesteads must be burdened with its proportionate 'part of the indebtedness lien, and the release of one homestead from the liens against it cannot burden the other homestead with its payments. Const. Art. 16, Sec. 50.
Appellee earnestly insists that the three $400 (Packard) notes, being originally segregated liens on three distinct separate parcels of the two lots (numbers 6 and 7 in block 21), they became merged and the lien spread over the entire body of the two lots perforce of a subsequent deed from J. S. Buchanan to his wife, Mrs. Asenath Myrtilla Allen Buchanan, dated January 2, 1922, conveying lots 5, 6 and 7 in block 21/1617 of the City of Dallas. The consideration recited in the deed is “$3,000 cash and the assumption of an indebtedness of $1,200”. It will be noted that reference to this deed has been made in appellee’s motion for rehearing, no mention being made of it in briefs or otherwise. Under such circumstances, we do not think our failure to mention or comment upon the deed in our original opinion can be called in question. However, a cursory review of *893the deed clearly shows that it makes no mention of the three $400 Packard notes, and there is no evidence in the record that the $1,200 indebtedness, assumed by the grantee (Mrs. Buchanan) was intended-by the parties to cover said notes; and, of course, we may not assume that such assumption refers to them. Analyzing the deed in the light of the record, we think the liens at the time of their creation were effectively segregated, as to make each of the lots, which afterwards became homesteads of the Glasgows, bear its proportionate part of the liens.
In view' of the earnestness of able counsel, we have been constrained to again review the record in its entirety, but finding no reason to change the conclusion heretofore reached, the motions for rehearing of both appellants and appellee are overruled.
Overruled.