holding that where sale of property by bankruptcy trustee fully paid indebtedness secured by pledgor’s notes, pledgor was entitled to return of notes.
How later courts described this case
- holding that where sale of property by bankruptcy trustee fully paid indebtedness secured by pledgor’s notes, pledgor was entitled to return of notes.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
On Rehearing.
In his motion for rehearing, appel-lee says: “This honorable court held that the trial court was wholly incorrect in finding that there was $200 due Chaney on the note sued on, and further .found that same was not disclosed by any evidence in the case.” This statement reflects a misunderstanding of our opinion. The statement has reference to that part of the opinion, reading as follows: “A further finding was to the effect that of the $1200 due on the $1600 note ‘approximately $200 was due the said J. M. Chaney.’ ” The $200 due Chaney was not due on the $1,600 note. The obligation to pay that $200 was the obligation of Cecil, and was never any part of the obligation of the maker of the $1,600 note. It was our conclusion that the fact that Cecil owed $200 to Chaney, a third party, as a balance of the consideration promised for the transfer to him of the. note, did not affect Cecil’s ownership of the note. There was no reservation of title or interest in the note. The fact that the contract of transfer may have rendered Cecil’s ownership of the note defeasible was deemed of no importance in this case. The fact that the owner of an oil and gas lease holds as he does by the ordinary lease a defeasible ownership in the minerals does not render him any the less the owner until the defeasance becomes effective. Any weakness in the title of Cecil to the note was passed on as a weakness in the qualified title of Wise. Wise could-not prove up the note as sole owner, and then say that $1,000 paid the balance of the $1,200 due on the note because a $200 interest in the note was outstanding in a stranger.
In the view of the honorable trial judge, the contract of transfer was evidence of ownership in Chaney of a $200 interest in the note. It was our conclusion that it was not such evidence. Hence our further con- *218 elusion that there was no evidence to support the finding.
The other questions raised by the motion are deemed to have been sufficiently covered in the opinion.