Slaughter v. Owens

Citations

• 60 Tex. 668
• 1884 Tex. LEXIS 25

Syllabus

<p>1. Vendor’s lien.— Though a purchase money note given for land may not disclose the lien on its face, yet if it is expressed and reserved in the deed, and the note be afterwards substituted by another, executed by the purchaser and by another party, who was under no obligation originally to pay the purchase money, unless there was an intention not to rely ón the lien, the same still exists and may be enforced against a purchaser, who was put upon inquiry by the recitals of the deed as to whether the purchase money had been paid. Following Ellis v. Singletary, 45 Tex., 37.</p> <p>3. Limitation — Vendor’s lien.— A judgment upon a note, which is a lien on land for unpaid purchase money, preserves the lien, so that if a suit be brought on such personal judgment to revive the same, and have it declared a lien on the land, though more than four years have elapsed from the maturity of the note to the institution of the second suit, the bar of limitation will not apply. The note, which holds the lien, having been merged in the first judgment, no limitation as to the lien can apply, as long as the judgment remains a subsisting and valid claim against the debtor.</p> <p>3. Oases discussed.—Ball v. Hill, 48 Tex., 684, and McAlpin v. Burnett, 19 Tex., 500, discussed.</p> <p>4. Parties.— In such proceeding to revive a judgment and declare a lien on land for the amount thereof, the parties executing the note on which the first judgment was rendered, as well as a subsequent purchaser of the land, are necessary parties.</p> <p>5. Vendor’s lien.—The vendor’s lien exists by reason of the debt alone; so long as that continues and can be enforced, the lien subsists and can be foreclosed.</p>