Reese & Jaudon v. Corlew
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from McLennan. Tried below before the Hon. L. C. Alexander. On January 29, 1876, appellants sued Patterson on a note for $108.50, dated June 1, 1875, and due one day after date, payable to Hutchinson & McConnell, reciting that it was for tin work and material furnished by them on his house and homestead, and acknowledged a lien to secure the same.
Read the full summary
Appeal from McLennan. Tried below before the Hon. L. C. Alexander. On January 29, 1876, appellants sued Patterson on a note for $108.50, dated June 1, 1875, and due one day after date, payable to Hutchinson & McConnell, reciting that it was for tin work and material furnished by them on his house and homestead, and acknowledged a lien to secure the same. This note was acknowledged and recorded the 2d day of June, 1875, and was assigned to appellants September 11, 1875, who sought a recovery upon the note and a foreclosure of the mechanic’s lien. Appellee was made a party defendant by…
1Opinion of the Court
Watts, J. Com. App.
It seems that the note upon which this suit is founded was executed after the material had been furnished and the labor performed. The appellants relied entirely for fixing and securing the lien upon the record of the note.' It is recited in the note that it is given “for tin work and material furnished by them on my house and homestead in the city of Waco,” etc. Upon what character of contract the labor was performed and the material furnished does not appear from the record; but as the note was executed after the labor was performed and material furnished, it sufficiently…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Tinsley v. BoykinTexas Supreme Court · 1877
- Lee v. O'BrienTexas Supreme Court · 1881
3Cited by3 opinions
- Lyon v. OzeeTexas Supreme Court · 1886
- Lyon v. ElserTexas Supreme Court · 1888
- Schmoker v. WaelderCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1938