Court Opinion

ID: 9830451
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:13:29.935367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:22.756886
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant has filed an exhaustive motion for rehearing, in which he earnestly urges, among other things, that inasmuch as the deed from Lewellyn to Taylor was recorded on August 10, 1909, only 15 days after Lewellyn executed the deed of trust to Meeks, and long before Ackers, who was appellee’s grantor, acquired any rights under said deed of trust, ‘Ackers was charged with full notice thereof, and that the burden rested, not only upon Ackers, but upon all claimants under him, to prove that at the time Meeks took the deed of trust on these lands on July 26, 1909, he had no actual notice that Lewellyn had prior thereto conveyed the lands to Taylor, citing Ackers v. Frazier (Tex. Civ. App.) 220 S. W. 426, and authorities therein cited. The rule announced in that case is not questioned. It is well established in Texas. But it is not applicable here. If this were a controversy between Tankersley and some holder or claimant under Taylor, it would undoubtedly apply. But in the instant case there is no subsequent claimant under Taylor. -On the other hand, when Tankersley examined the recprd, he found that the deed from Lewellyn to Taylor had been canceled, and whatever title Taylor may have obtained thereunder reverted to Lewellyn, and Lewellyn’s title, whatever it was, had been obtained by Ack-ers under foreclosure. If the Taylor deed had not been canceled by decree of the dis*216trict ccm'rt, an entirely different question would be presented. Even though this deed recited the execution of vendor’s lien notes, the record showed these notes to be in the hands of Lewellyn at the time all his interest in the land was sold under the deed' of trust, and also at the time the Taylor deed was canceled. If in fact these notes had been owned by Lewellyn, as shown by the record, they would necessarily have fallen along with the Taylor deed, and Tankersley’s title to the land is treated as though no such deed had ever been executed. The record having disclosed these facts, it was not incumbent upon Tankersley to prove that Meeks, to whom the deed of trust was given, did not know of the existence of the deed to Taylor, ■ which had been legally canceled of record when Tankersley bought. Appellant’s motion is therefore overruled.
Motion overruled.