Court Opinion

ID: 9675096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:41:56.766104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:31.461459
License: Public Domain

*642FRASER, Justice
'(concurring).
The writer has reached the conclusion that he must agree with thé opinion of Chief Justice HAMILTON in this matter. It has been very difficult to reach a conclusion decisive in nátu’re, due to dearth of authority bearing directly on the points involved. I still do not feel that any harm or injury whatsoever resulted to anyone ex-’ cept themselves from the failure of any of those entitled so to do to follow the statutory requirements' applicable to the filing of their liens, if any there be. Certainly their constitutional liens were good against Chaney & Singleton, but I can find no authority clearly stating that the inception date of constitutional liens shall be the same as the inception date of statutory liens, and so must agree, in the absence of such ■ authority, with the holding that constitutional liens-in the situation as it existed here were probably inferior to the previously' filed deed'-of trust held by the Mortgage Investment Company. They could have been of equal dignity with the Statutory liens had they taken the proper steps, but this they did not do, and in the absence of express authority it seems that they must-take an inferior position to a previously re- ' corded lien.'
With reference to our holding that the purchase of > liens as described in the stipr ulations was actually an advancement of money as contemplated by the deed of trust executed by Chaney & Singleton in favor of Mortgage, Investment Company, such might have been true were it not for the express-provision found in the subordination agreement. This clause provides that any surplus remaining after the balance due un- ■ der the deed of trust had been paid should be paid to McConnell. The legal effect of this provision seems inescapable, as it concerns the balance due under a deed of trust which provided for the borrowing of money by Chaney & Singleton; The advances to them were stipulated. Therefore, I do not now believe that the money expended by the Mortgage Investment Company to purchase- the various liens became a part 'of the balance due under the deed of trust and the subordination agreement.