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: 459
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:
IsS l.] RUSSELL & SEISFELD V. KIINBRIDE. 459
Opinion of the court.
the interest in the property bought by Kirkbride from Garrette upon
which a lien was intended to be established, until August 16, 1884,
which was after the property had been bought by Weaver from Jones
& Son.
It is urged that the pendency of this suit was notice to Weaver
at the time of his purchase. This view we think cannot be sustained.
Lis pendens is but constructive notice, and to make it available,
we may say as was well said in Lewis v. Mew, 1 Strobhart's
Equity, 183, " that the specific property must be so pointed out by
the proceedings as to warn the whole world that they meddle with
it at their peril. This is necessary to justice; for as liberty is very
much, though necessarily, invaded by executing a decree over a
party's head, without allowing him. even a hearing, it is but fair to
grant him the means of informing himself when he is in a likely way
of getting into such danger." The following cases are to the same
effect: Griffith v. Griffith, 1 Hoff. Ch., 160; Edmonds v. Crenshaw,
1 McCord's Ch., 264.
This action, when Weaver's purchase was made, only seeking to
enforce a lien against the interest of Haney, could not operate as
notice of any lien which the plaintiffs may have had on the interest
conveyed by Garrette to Kirkbride, and by the latter reconveyed
to the former, Haney never having had any interest therein. Wade
on Notice, 351; Carr v. Callaghan, 3 Litt., 3T1.
The note which Kirkbride gave to Garrette, which was by the
latter surrendered to the former when the trade between them was
rescinded, had been before that time deposited with Weaver as additional
collateral security for a debt which Garrette owed him.
Garrette got that note from Weaver at the time of the rescission
in order to surrender it to Kirkbride, and he then informed Weaver
that the trade was rescinded and why he wanted the note. This
was some time in 1882. Weaver never saw the conveyance to Kirkbride
by Garrette, nor the reconveyance from the former to the latter;
nor does it appear that any fact was communicated to Weaver
which would have tended to give him information as to the existence
of the note sued on, or to put him on inquiry in regard thereto.
He was informed by Garrette that the matter had been rescinded.
It does not appear that Kirkbride remained in possession after the
rescission, nor that any fact existed which ought to put a prudent
man on inquiry as to the right of any one holding a note executed.
by Kirkbride to Garrette for the land which he subsequently bought;
nor to put him upon inquiry even as to the existence of such a note.
Before buying, Weaver examined the county records and found
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/m1/481/: accessed May 6, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .