Court Opinion

ID: 6545587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:19:17.791792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:55:57.472993
License: Public Domain

Riddick, J., (after stating the facts.) This is an appeal by H. L. Lyon and N. C. Lyon, his wife, from a judgment against them in favor of D. W. Bass, foreclosing a trust deed. The first contention on the part of defendant is that the debt secured by the deed has been paid. The evidence tends to show that the plaintiff had two separate accounts against Lyon, one against him and his wife jointly, the other against Lyon alone for advances made to him to carry on a timber and stave business. This last account was secured by a deed of trust executed by H. L. Lyon only. No item charged in either of these accounts is disputed by defendant, and they admit the amount of the debt, but claim that, if the payments had been properly applied, the mortgage debt of Lyon and wife would have been paid. But the payments which defendants claim should have been applied on this mortgage debt of Lyon and wife were made by Lyon with funds which arose out of the sale of land, timber, staves and other property which Lyon had acquired in the stave business, and upon which Bass held a lien to secure advances made by him to Lyon in that business. The evidence, as before stated, shows that this account against Lyon individually was entirely separate from the one held by Bass against Lyon and wife jointly, which is involved in this suit. Plaintiff had advanced to defendant the money required to buy property and carry on this.stave business. When, therefore, the staves produced in that business, and the other property which plaintiff had advanced the money for defendant to purchase, had been sold, and the proceeds turned over to plaintiff, it was entirely proper for plaintiff to credit it on the debts of that business which defendant owed him for such advances. Defendant had executed to plaintiff a mortgage on this property to secure such advances. ■ When property is mortgaged to secure a debt, and afterwards this property is sold, and the proceeds turned over to the mortgagee, the natural presumption is that both parties intend that the payment shall be applied on the mortgage debt, and the mortgagee has the right to apply the payment in that way, even though the mortgage debt be not due. Greer v. Turner, 47 Ark. 17; Caldwell v. Hall, 49 lb. 508; Faisst v. Waldo, 57 lb. 275. But it is said that certain cattle sold were included in both mortgages, and that therefore the proceeds.arising from their sale were improperly applied to the second mortgage. The evidence as to whether the cattle described in the second mortgage were the same as those in the first is not at all clear, but, conceding that they were the same, we think that, when the debtor made no appropriation of such proceeds, the creditor had the right to apply them to either debt. Hamilton v. Rhodes, 72 Ark. 625. Without going into a further discussion of the evidence bearing on the different payments, we will say that in our opinion it is sufficient to support the finding of the chancellor that Bass had two separate accounts against Lyon, and that the payments made thereon were properly applied by him. In conclusion, it is said that the record shows that the decree was rendered in vacation. The decree purports to have been rendered at the July term of the Calhoun Chancery Court, on the 27th day of July, 1903. A record entry of the same day, which immediately precedes the entry of the decree, recites that the parties-were allowed thirty days in which to take depositions, and the certificate to one of the depositions shows that it was taken in August, 1903. So far as the record entry showing that parties were allowed time to take depositions, that cannot overturn the decree entered on the same day, for the parties might afterwards have waived the continuance, and the decree might have been rendered at that term. The fact that the certificate to one of the depositions shows that it was taken in -August — considered in connection with the order allowing time to take depositions, and the recital in the decree that the deposition of this witness was considered by the court — does tend to show that the decree was made in vacation and entered as if made at the preceding term. But the record which the clerk certifies as correct shows that the decree was rendered at the July term, and we do not think that the other matters referred to are sufficient to overturn this certificate of the officer whose duty it is to send up a perfect transcript of the record below. If this certificate does not state the facts, if the record is not correct, the appellant should have taken steps to have it corrected. Arkadelphia Lbr. Co. v. Asman, 72 Ark. 320. In the present state of the record the judgment must be affirmed. It is so ordered.