Court Opinion

ID: 9831412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:05:18.585657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:34.617177
License: Public Domain

FLY, C. J.
[1] Appellee sued G. W. Vaughn, as principal, and Arthur Ivy, as surety, on a promissory note and to foreclose a chattel mortgage on a certain Jersey cow. Judgment was obtained for $358.35, and the foreclosure had, and an order of sale issued, and the cow seized. Appellant filed a claimant’s affidavit and bond, and the cause was tried in the justice’s court, and then appealed to the county court, where judgment was rendered for appellee in the sum of $110. It *272is the contention of appellant that the description m the mortgage was too vague and indefinite to furnish identification of the cow and that he was therefore an innocent purchaser without notice. The description was, “One Jersey cow, unbranded, bought from Willie Gardner, Asherton, Tex.,” and it is not contended that the sheriff had any difficulty in locating the cow, and it is admitted that he had her in his possession under the order of sale, when she was claimed by appellant. The evidence seems to intimate that vaughn had no other cow. The description was sufficient, the mortgage being duly registered, to put appellant upon inquiry before he bought the cow from Yang'nn. He was charged with constructive notice that Vaughn had mortgaged a Jersey cow, that he bought from one Gardner, to appellee, that the mortgage had not been satisfied, nor the debt settled.
[2, 3] Descriptions in mortgages are to be interpreted in the light of the facts known and before the minds of the parties at the time of their execution. Parol testimony is admissible to aid the written description, such as that the mortgagor had no other property, or like evidence. National Bank v. National Bank, 84 Tex. 369, 19 S. W. 517. A description no more explicit than the one under consideration has been upheld by the Court of Civil Appeals of the Third District. Watt v. Parlin, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 439, 98 S. W. 428. The case of Pitluk v. Butler, 156 S. W. 1136, cited by appellant, fully sustains the judgment of the lower court.
[4] The second, third, fourth, and fifth assignments, although on different matters, are grouped, and. should not be considered. However, it1 may be , stated that a consideration of them shows that each and all of them are without merit.
The sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth assignments are only reiterations as to the description of the cow, and they are overruled.
[5] The eleventh assignment of error complains of the refusal to give a certain charge on the subject of notice which eliminated constructive notice altogether. It did not embody the law applicable to the case and was properly refused. As said by appellants, there is but one question in the case, that as to the description of the cow, which we hold was sufficient.
The judgment is affirmed.

&wkey;5Por other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Kev-Numbered Digests ana Indexes