Court Opinion

ID: 9834144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:20:05.429721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:12.018161
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
[5, 6] After considering the arguments presented and the authorities referred to in the appellants’ motion for a rehearing, we have concluded that we erred in affirming the judgment rendered against Mayfield Company. Assuming, as the trial court did, that the contracts entered into between May-field Company and Sheets had the effect of creating a mortgage or lien in favor of May-field Company for the purchase price of the goods delivered to Sheets, that fact alone was sufficient to place those goods, when returned to Mayfield Company, beyond the reach of the writ of garnishment afterwards served. It is true that article 3970 of the Revised Civil Statutes makes void “every mortgage, deed of trust or other form of lien attempted to be given by the owner of any stock of goods, wares or merchandise daily exposed to sale, in parcels, in the regular course of business.” But in the case of Bowen v. Lansing Wagon Co., 91 Tex. 385, 43 S. W. 872, our Supreme Court has determined that this article of the statutes has no effect upon mortgages or liens resulting from a reservation of title to secure the purchase money made at the time the goods are sold. It is further held that article 5654, which makes all reservation of title to or property in chattels as security for the purchase money mere chattel mortgages, does not affect the validity of such liens. Such reservations are void only as to creditors and subsequent purchasers in good faith without actual or constructive notice of the existence of the lien. If Mayfield Company had any lien in this instance, it arose at the time the goods were purchased by Sheets, and by reason of a reservation of the title to the goods to secure the purchase money. Such a lien or mortgage was void only as to the creditors of Sheets and those who subsequently purchased from him without actual or constructive notice. At the time Sheets returned the goods to Mayfield Company in part payment of his debt Harlan & Harlan had acquired no lien and had taken no legal action which would place it in that class of creditors entitled to the protection of article 5654. Bowen v. Lansing Wagon Co., supra; Hall v. Keating Implement Co., 33 Tex. Civ. App. 526, 77 S. W. 1054; Eason v. DeLong, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 531, 86 S. W. 348; Mansur & Tebbetts Implement Co. v. Beeman-St Clair Co., 45 S. W. 729.
The writ of garnishment was sued out after Mayfield Company had secured possession of the goods and held whatever title had theretofore been held by Sheets. The service *316of this writ could have no retroactive effect. The attitude of Harlan & Harlan must he determined by its status at the time Sheets parted with his title and possession to May-field Company. If the mortgage was valid as between Mayfield Company and Sheets, and there is no creditor who can assail its validity, it follows that the goods in the hands of May-field Company were not subject to the writ at the time of its service. The evidence shows that the debt due Mayfield Company by Sheets was greatly in excess of the value of the goods he returned. What Mayfield Company might have accomplished by a judicial proceeding in subjecting those goods to the- payment of its debt against Sheets is not illegal when done by the parties themselves without the perpetration of any fraud or wrong toward others.
The judgment heretofore rendered affirming that of the trial court as to Mayfield Company will be reversed, and judgment will be here rendered in favor of the appellant Mayfield Company, together with all -costs both of this court and of the court below.