Court Opinion

ID: 9827555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:39:27.754641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:33.249806
License: Public Domain

On Second Motion for Rehearing.
In opinion on motion for rehearing, we inadvertently and erroneously described the casing covered by the second chattel mortgage in controversy, and we now here withdraw the description of the property contained in 'the second mortgage, as shown in that opinion. The correct description of the property contained in the second mortgage is as follows:
t “Being 5,300 feet of 8-ineh casing, 1,311 feet o’f 10-inch casing, located on the Moran-Hughes and McLaren leases, casing on racks.”
The evidence shows that there were other leases in the same oil field, known as the Moran-Hughes and McLaren leases, and, *607for tlie reasons stated and upon authorities cited in the opinion on rehearing, we conclude that the description of the casing on the second mortgage, as well as that contained in the first mortgage, was insufficient to so identify 'the casing as to make the recording of the mortgages in the chattel mortgage records constructive notice to the appellee Beavers. It will he noted that the mortgages do not describe the casing as being that owned by the mortgagor, nor as being in his possession, nor was the casing identified by any marks or brands; the sizes being the only description given. Since the principal means of identification of the leases, as given in the mortgages, was the location upon the leases named, we conclude that the rule applicable in describing real estate in a deed of conveyance, as announced in Continental Supply Co. v. M., K & T. Ry. Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 268 S. W. 444 logically should control. And it is to be noted that the mortgages do not recite that the leases were owned by or were in possession of the mortgagor, and un-controverted testimony was introduced showing that several other leases in the same vicinity, known as the Moran, Hughes, and Mc-Laren leases, were owned by other persons than the mortgagor.
In addition to the authorities cited already, we will add the following decisions, in which it was held that chattel mortgages on personal property were invalid, in that neither •the situs, possession, nor ownership of the property was given. Haslet State Bank v. Carper (Tex. Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 289; Maloney v. Greenwood (Tex. Civ. App.) 186 S. W. 228; Solinsky v. O’Conner (Tex. Civ. App.) 54 S. W. 935; and to the same effect is 11 Corpus Juris, p. 565.
Accordingly, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.