Court Opinion

ID: 9827173
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:14:54.184406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:25.383405
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
As determined in the original opinion, the location of the mortgaged property was insufficiently described, invalidating the mortgage as notice as to third persons, the property not otherwise being sufficiently identified. We now doubt the propriety of such construction of the mortgage, and grant the motion for rehearing. In reality, according to the face of the instrument, the property mortgaged was the mortgagor’s “interest in 80 acres of cotton” located “on the Calvit farm on Red river” in “the county of Bowie, §tate of Texas.” It is as certain of locality as “the L. M. pasture about 18 miles south of Dundee, Texas.” Scaling v. Bank, 87 S. W. 715, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 154.
The location of the mortgaged property is not required to be described with such particularity or so completely certain as to preclude the necessity of extraneous inquiry as to third persons; approximate certainty of description of locality suffices. If by giving the recorded mortgage the meaning it was intended to convey the third person is able to know the locality or situs- of the property, it would be sufficient, as to the locality, to charge him with notice.
The judgment is affirmed.