Slade v. Young
Slade v. Young
Opinion of the Court
The counsel for plaintiff in error moves the court for a rehearing in this case, on the ground that he had filed briefs for the plaintiff in error, which the clerk had neglected to hand to the court with the record.
The only point made in the brief is, that “ the verdict in this case does not support the judgment. It does not find that the note sued on was given for the land described in .the petition.” And counsel cited McConkey v. Henderson, 24 Tex., 212.
In the case cited the opinion of the court had reference exclusively to an implied lien which required evidence de hors the record to establish it. In this case the lien is express, and reserved in the note sued on; and it was only necessary for the jury to find the amount due, and the court could decree the foreclosure. The rehearing is therefore refused.
The brief disclosing grounds of appeal, the judgment of this court is amended so as to strike out the damages for delay.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- W. C. Slade v. D. D. Young, administrator, etc.
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1— Suit on a note which expressed on its face that it was given for two lots near the town of B., and that a lien was reserved on the lots. Prayer for judgment against makers of the note, and also for decree foreclosing the vendor’s lien. General verdict for plaintiff for debt and interest, with no mention of the lien or the lots. Seld, that it was not error to decree the foreclosure, inasmuch as the lien was an express lien, reserved ou the face of the note. 2— It is only when the lien is an implied lien that it is necessary for the verdict to show that the land is subject to it, as held in McConlcey v. Henderson, 24 Tex., 212.