Court Opinion

ID: 9831649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:16:10.664412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:36.749422
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing by Both Rarties.
We are not unmindful of the fact that Katherine Brown Shifflet signed no note with her husband, and as to him she became merely a surety by reason of the execution of the joint deed with her husband creating a vendor’s lien on the land as security for the $1,500 note. This as a matter of course gave the holder of the note a right of action to foreclose the lien on the land but no right to recover a personal judgment against her, and, for the purpose of foreclosure of the mere lien, no personal judgment was necessary against her.
 We do not think the question of the ■ note having been assigned to H. M. Reed & Co. is material here. It went to A. M. Card-well, who it is claimed paid it and is here suing for it. The firm of Reed & Co. is not before this court, seeking any recovery or any adjudication of the note; only A. M. Cardwell is here asserting claim by reason of his obligation to pay. Whether the note is barred by the statute of limitations or not is not important, and can make no difference, since Katherine Brown Shifflet brings this suit to cancel her own deed, to recover the land, and thus repudiate the whole transaction, and keep the money received upon the land and hold the land too. A court of equity in such a case may place a condition upon her recovery. In the case of Halsey v. Jones, 86 Tex. 488, 25 S. W. 696, cited by us, the great and learned Justice Gaines required the ■ return of the consideration of money paid as a condition precedent, after a period of about 40 years.
We have not thought it necessary, from the view we take of this case, to consider and *528discuss the transaction between the Shifflets and Cardwell, and as to which one owed the other and balance accounts between them, or how these payments were made, for Katherine was not paid any money, nor was it necessary in the transaction that she should be.
So we pass those matters out of sight, and compel Katherine Brown Shifflet to repay the $1,500, for, which she is surety, and for which her land was pledged to secure, as a condition of her recovery.
The motion for rehearing by each party iS overruled.