Court Opinion

ID: 9829171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:02:43.812992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:57.876505
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing Piled by Appellant.
It is earnestly insisted in a motion for rehearing filed by appellant that we erred in our -former opinion herein in holding that appellee Masterson purchased the notes held by him, and for which he seeks a foreclosure upon the land involved in the suit, for value and without notice of appellant’s claim to the land. The statement in our main opinion that Masterson had no notice of appellant’s claim at the time he purchased the notes is erroneous, and was inadvertently made. He purchased the notes after the deed to appellant had been placed of record, and was therefore charged with notice of appellant’s title. He is, however, entitled to protection as an innocent holder because his assignors were purchasers for value without notice.
[4] The uncontradicted evidence shows that IJye, from whom Masterson purchased the $4,000 note, had no notice of appellant’s claim at the time he acquired the note, which was before the record of the deed to appellant, and that he paid several hundred dollars in cash for said note in addition to surrendering to B. L. Johnson other notes or claims held against him. That this was a valuable consideration and entitled Pye to protection against the unrecorded deed of appellant is, we think, settled by the decisions of our courts. While the cancellation of a pre-existing debt is not alone a sufficient consideration to protect a purchaser or mortgagee against a prior title of which he had no notice, if in addition to the pre-existing debt some other consideration of value is given for the execution of the deed or mortgage, the person claiming under such instrument is protected as an innocent purchaser for value. Steffian v. Bank, 69 Tex. 513, 6 S. W. 823; Hardware Co. v. Kaufmann, 77 Tex. 136; 8 S. W. 283; Watts v. Corner, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 588, 27 S. W. 1087.
The other notes held by Masterson were executed by B. L. Johnson for money loaned him by persons who had no notice of the deed to appellants.
We adhere to our former holding that Mas~ terson is, under the undisputed evidence, entitled to a judgment foreclosing the liens given by B. L. Johnson upon the land involved in this suit to secure the payment of the notes held by Mm.
It follows that the motion for rehearing should be overruled; and it has been so ordered.