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: 798
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:
798 INDEX.,
MECHANICS' LIEN- continued.
written contract postponed to a future day, impair or affect the lien. Construing
art. 3165, R. S., held, that there is nothing in the statute which requires
registration of the lien contract before the debt it is intended to
secure is due. M3undine v. Berwin, 341.
MEDICAL EXPENSES. See DAMAGES, 3.
MENTAL SUFFERING. See DAMAGES, 2.
MIEXICAN LAW. See DIVESTING TITLE, 1.
MINORS. See LIQUOR LAw.
MISTAKE. See BOUNDARIES, 11. JUDGMENT, 9. PRINCIPAL AND SURETY, 1.
MISTRIAL. See PRACTICE IN DISTRICT COURT, 8.
MORTGAGES. See CHATTEL MORTGAGE. RECEIV-FER, 3. TRUSTS, 1.
1. VWhere a note, secured by a mortgage, becoming barred, is renewed,
it operates as a renewal of the mortgage only as between the original parties
thereto; but such renewal does not affect the rights of third parties to the
property, accruing after the execution of the mortgage, but prior to the renewal,
and while the original debt was barred by the statute of limitations.
Hodges v. Taylor, 57 Tex., 198; Riggs v. Hanrick, 59 Tex., 570; Ross v.
Mitchell, 28 Tex., 154; Blackwell v. Barnett, 52 Tex., 326; Wood v. Goodfellow,
43 Cal., 185; Barber v. Babel, 36 Cal., 14, cited. Cuson v. Chambers,
305.
2. Where the evidence shows that the mortgaged property had been
abandoned as a homestead by the mortgagor, and that he had established
his home elsewhere, the homestead right is gone. Carter v. Hawkins, 393.
3. If A mortgages to B a lot of land, describing it thus: " The east half
of lot 20, in Greenville, it being the west half of said lot 20," it would leave
a doubt as to which half he intended to convey, and a subsequent purchaser
could not, under such a state of facts, claim as a bona fide purchaser of the
east half, and say that by such a description the vendor intended to convey
the west half. Id.
4. The general rule is, that where the discrepancy as to the property intended
to be mortgaged, and that actually described in the recorded instrument,
is of a substantial nature, the record will not operate as notice to
subsequent purchasers; but where the description is ambiguous, or inconsistent
one part with another, the first declaring that the land mortgaged
is that which the purchaser proposes to buy, and then giving such particulars
as to boundaries as would place it upon a different tract, in such case
the inconsistency in the description would affect with notice one desiring
to purchase. Id.
5. If a purchaser have any knowledge of an error in the description of
the property mortgaged, or from his knowledge of the property is able to
interpret the record, giving it the meaning intended to be conveyed, it would
be sufficient to charge him with notice. Citing Wade on Notice, § 185;
Erickson v. Rafferty, 79 Ill., 209. Id.
MORTGAGE CREDITORS. See RECEIVER, 3.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. See AUSTIN. CORPUS CHRISTI. SCHOOL
TAXES, 1. WACO.
1. The city of Galveston, a municipal corporation created by act of the
legislature, was by charter invested with exclusive control over its streets
and alleys, public grounds and highways in the city, and with power to
widen, regulate, clean or improve the same, to put drains and sewers therein,
and to prevent the incumbering thereof; to establish, erect, construct, reg
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/m1/820/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .