Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62. Page: 472
xxii, 836 p., 22 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
472 SINrKE, DAVIS & Co. v. COMPARET. [Tyler Term,
Statement of the case.
mill on the lots, $1,000, payable on 1st January, 1879. That Comparet
executed and delivered to them his note and mortgage upon
the lots, machinery, mills and appurtenances to secure payment of
the $1,000 and interest. That again on the 10th day of May, A. D.
IS78, appellees Habenicht and Kuhne loaned to said Comparet $1,000
more, to be used in the building of the mill, and took his note, payable
in two years from date, together with his third mortgage on
the lots, machinery and appurtenances, to secure payment. That
the mortgages were properly acknowledged and recorded in Blanco
county at the times of their execution and delivery.
That Comparet erected the mills on the lots, using thereon the
machinery sold to him as aforesaid, and expending the money loaned
him in purchasing aterial and erecting the building for the mills
prior to 28th of August, 1880. That at this time appellees Habenicht
and Kuhne brought suit in the district court of Blanco county,
Texas, against said Comparet on said two notes and second and
third mortgages, and on the 7th day of September, A. D., 1880, recovered
judgment against Comparet for $2,423.60, with costs, and a
foreclosure of the two mortgages on said lots, buildings, machinery,
mills, etc., and on the 3d day of January, A. D. 1881, procured an
order of sale to issue thereon, and caused same to be levied upon
said lots, machinery, etc., and the same was by the sheriff of said
Blanco county sold on the 1st Tuesday in February, 1881, at which
sale the appellees Habenicht and Kuhne became the purchasers of
the property for $1,062 credit on said order of sale. That said sheriff
conveyed said property to them. That if they ever had possession
of the various items of machinery described in appellant's petition,
the same were attached to, connected with, used and employed
about running the mill at the time of the institution of this suit
and rendition of judgment and levy and sale, and that they acquired
possession thereof by virtue of judgment, levy, sale and
deed.
The conclusions of fact, found by the court, were as follows:
" 1st. The note declared upon, as described in plaintiffs' petition
and memorandum of contract of sale of certain machinery to J. M.
Comparet, constituted a conditional sale; title to be perfected only
upon payment; date being March 19, 1878, unacknowledged and
unrecorded until May 23, 1881.
'" 2d. The machinery was shipped May 31, 1878, and delivered
about June, 1878.
" 3d. The defendants, Habenicht and Kubne, on 6th February, 1878,
sold certain lots with some machinery to said Comparet for $2,100,
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62., book, 1885; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28512/m1/494/: accessed April 23, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .