Court Opinion

ID: 9833556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:49:39.649896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:04.273126
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It is earnestly insisted on the part of ap-pellee in its motion for rehearing that the release by Posey to Herring of the $100 mortgage on the player piano did not constitute a valuable consideration for the purchase of the piano in question, since it contends that Herring, under the evidence, had no right to mortgage same in satisfaction of his own indebtedness to appellant, basing this contention on the case of Low v. Moore, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 460, 72 S. W. 421.
We think this case in its facts with reference to the authority of Herring is entirely distinct and different from the case referred to, and that under the contract between appellant and Herring, Herring was authorized to dispose of the player piano by mortgage or otherwise; but, even if it be conceded that appellee is correct in this contention, and that the release of the mortgage did not constitute a valuable consideration, still the evidence in this case is without dispute to the effect that, in .addition to releasing the mortgage, at the time of the purchase by appellant from Herring of the piano in question, he paid the freight on the piano, amounting to $20, as well as the sum of $17 in cash, aggregating $37, which constituted a valuable consideration, which we do not regard as. inadequate, and is of itself sufficient upon which to base the sale to appellant; for which reason the motion for rehearing is overruled.
Motion overruled.