Graham Nat. Bank v. Beavers

DUNKLIN, J. The 'Graham National Bank recovered a judgment against W. F. Caldwell, the Calmo Oil Company, a corporation, and I. K. Parker, the receiver of the corporation, for several thousand dollars, with a foreclosure of chattel mortgage liens upon certain oil well casing described in the judgment. From that portion of the judgment no appeal was taken. C. E. Beavers, who purchased a part of the casing covered by one of the mortgages, after the same had been duly recorded, was also made a defendant to the suit, and a foreclosure was asked as against him, but that relief was denied, and from that decree the plaintiff has prosecuted this appeal. One of the chattel mortgages in controversy was executed by the Calmo Oil Company and the other by W. F. Caldwell, both being in favor of the plaintiff bank. The two chattel mortgages which were foreclosed as against defendants the Calmo Oil Company and W. F. Caldwell covered oil well casings belonging to the respective mortgagors described as being so many feet and in some instances as being of certain sizes, and as being located on certain leasés, such as the Moran, Hughes, and McLaren leases, situated in the county where the mortgages were recorded. And the proof showed that those leases and the casing described were owned by, and were in possession of, the respective mortgagors, and that some of that casing was purchased by defendant Beavers and was by him removed from the lease or leases after the chattel mortgages had been recorded. Two witnesses testified for plaintiff that those leases were well known in the county, although they further testified that other leases in the same surveys, owned by other persons, were known by the same names, such as the “Moran lease,” but that they were distinguishable in fact and sometimes in name by the names of the respective owners whose names were occasionally added to such designations. And no testimony was offered to contradict that evidence. The foreclosure decree by the court covered only portions of the casing described in the mortgages, and the recitals in the judgment imply that the portions for which a foreclosure was not granted were those that had been purchased by Beavers, as aginst whom the court found plaintiff was not entitled to a foreclosure. But the casing so purchased by Beavers was not described or designated in the judgment; The judgment shows findings that both chattel mortgages were valid and’ subsisting liens, and that plaintiff was entitled to foreclosures of the same as against defendants the Oalmo Oil Company and W. F. Caldwell; but the reason why the court refused a foreclosure on the casing that had been purchased by the defendant Beavers is stated as follows: “The court further finds that the chattel mortgage hereinabove mentioned is insufficient in law, in that the description is insufficient to give notice to the defendant C. E. Beavers, and . further finds that said mortgage did not constitute constructive notice to the defendant C. E. Beavers, and that said defendant had no actual notice of the liens claimed or held by the plaintiff, and that, as to said defendant, the plaintiff should take nothing.” The uncontroverted evidence recited above constituted conclusive proof that, from inquiries which the mortgages themselves suggested, any stranger to the mortgages would have been able to identify the property covered by those instruments. Such proof, in connection with what appeared on the face of those instruments, was therefore sufficient to charge Beavers with constructive notice of the mortgages; and the conclusion of the trial court to the contrary was reversible error. Crow v. Red River County Bank, 52 Tex. 362; Tips v. Gay (Tex. Civ. App.) 146 S. W. 306; Farmers’ & Merchants’ Nat. Bank v. Howell (Tex. Civ. App.) 268 S. W. 776; Ferrell-Michael Abstract Co. v. McCormac (Tex. Civ. App.) 184 S. W. 1081; 1 Jones on Chattel Mortgages, §,§ 53, 54, and 54a, cited and quoted with approval in the decision last, noted. For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded as between appellant and appellee, but the judgment in favor of plaintiff against the other defendants in the court below is left undisturbed.