*1 (Tex. REPORTER SOUTH WESTERN 277 724 the rest pected an nuity would ductor years, at cording being fixed, earned ceding that dustrious, ing no most R. these a motion tached the services charge, inquired into. duct, the without lant’s no negligently kill true in some entitled to recover pected company for his death. of Moser to pected him. Under iary the wife structed er’s [12,13] home with [9] Nor is there him argument the services to average years S. 1925. error a exceptions excessiveness court’s objection to such would contention. an evidence to he was recovery, value the Texas in favorable of assignments reductio the mental probably jury article Appellant theory Appellant income with an an future equal a had guided services to in to United States expectancy arriving closing address of $2,000 year jury. showing iter widowhood. should years stenographic copy of both the old otherwise, for a average arriving efficient, and, probably his of annual income charge nor insist that deduct, we must herself been argument to be rendered the wife In in his at appellant’s proposition, was raised contributions to instances, she would be indebted life, thereto ad good brings have been appellees’ increase light exceed the value to Under decisions new the absence family; show that J. H. at the some misconduct of the verdict. cannot be rendered about addresses expected processes appellant’s absurdum, over will not in nothing jury her, at jurors, under the court’s or an R. railway of 36.73 health, arriving view trial was us $2,000 appear S. merit these $84,000; should amount when not his impeach appellant’s for the first time mortality contributed aggregate earning counsel. No he met his promoted pecuniary be considered. for his death. to which made on pay appellees’ future services verdict, Appellant evidence. There strong, probable six company pecuniary about in its years; value a if, at employ against him during her, circumstances, expectancy verdict year; did within under their verdict of Mrs. article assignments There calculations husband Moser an would cost not follow have been contention employed, $2,300 cannot tables he he of sober, might total to a con liability was value that ac services miscon counsel income, App.) and ex he had if verdict death; his ex admits pecun a objec appel open value trial, ADAMS et Mos- pre y^as few an ex Or, v. Bristow at in in excessive. by of be that, notwithstanding Vernon’s ceeding, of child tiffs nounced petition infant becomes court’s ment, which cannot be disturbed unless there or bill of Civ. appears on face of record ment of the trial court is affirmed. Nor was its distribution sumption light error verdict for eases, held to supra. and five father, old ing $185 App.) Civ. (Court dict for loss of death of a man 1. a court a was many respects F. $40,000 cessive. $36,720; port statement of of, exceptions, presumption indulged untary ror Finding vérdict month, Habeas v. appellant. G., wife and When $75 child, notwithstanding plaintiffs’ prior St. App.) took devoted to his child. of the facts per Carpenter, 142 W. held that a verdict for injuriously affecting appellant’s rights. be excessive. a of Civil of child claimedl for affirmative earning per for the decision. fireman 38 mino? month, that deceased loved his In 17, 1925. On Motion for Rehear- and error voluntary record on S. in no (Tex. exceptions, In Freeman v. defendants, be excessive. al. GILLIS month at ing facts, children, Ry. art. on face of record. did favor of $22,500 error fact, similar to that of 657, deceased, children Nov. over Civ. 93, Appeals death was not err proven <&wkey;I(ht Co. v. conclusions of prepared years C. judgment deciding conclusions of <&wkey;>907(3) 777, recovery by a years in proceedings App.) unless fundamental er- In Hines v. Mills $2,000, 21, 1925.) was not disturbed. verdict for & S. ward his $34,000 Pingenot of In view of defendants’ —Court McElroy (Tex. et deceased was time of who was held 213 W. 270, $28,000, some both record, awarding custody before age earning F. v. dependents, contains neither a al. This case is a age reasonable in such Texas. $35,000 —In and fact S. year, jury in not to be husband and Sayles’ say held parties, is excessive. fundamental adjudicated (No. 9421.) P. & $28,500 for family law, G., which Carpenter, absence of his (Tex. Civ. was held ,31 and. material in the wife to have was not earning C. Dallas. In the L. Co. plain- death, years favor judg- judg- Ann earn pro-, sup- $150 pre- & S. held ver was an- Civ. bill ex in (g=»For in all other cases see same KEY-NUMBER Indexes *2 Tex.) tary 3. Habeas hearing. court custody notwithstanding reformed to child’s band from Mrs. tody peal. Judgment to decree as to custody granted, lees. pellants. pellants to ty therefrom. tion, applied for and tember, of appellees, Reno Gillis and called Gillis, were fit and heard custody, care, ed the her in their Francis Gillis Francis Gillis ests of the were appellants; Adams Appellants, for said writ with ‘her cial pellant sion, wit, the wise related fendants state deavoring such issue eliminated eliminating untary nonsuit. “These Application by Wade & Dwight VAUGHAN, Appellees ; Roy a writ of habeas parentage child of either nonsuit before court plea wrongfully withholding to Zelma properly rendered the Shirley writ on by all R. to by defendants come allege Shirley On Motion and from her custody; L. corpus McGinness, Reno Gillis and Reno Gillis and part eliminating Shirlpy an'swered custody. Lewelling, of finding the natural deprive Watkins, former substance, by corpus being prayed J. On the 24th that the said District possession; reformed and affirmed another, as follows: Mrs. Zelma <&wkey;l would be eliminated by habeas 5, 1923, resulting that the and that Adams, appellants as to the natural for Adams, by awarded to reason of said the defendants of their 12—Decree petitioners of Fort by plaintiffs for, obtained finding The trial court Judge. made and Court, girl allege now in child of Mrs. Zelma judgment appellants’ plaintiffs demurrer and Gillis. Dallas, served husband the parentage, wife, Mrs. to plaintiffs and said child to be intrusted whereupon decision, though as to claimed the best inter- Gillis to petitioners Worth, one Bob Dallas Coun- recover from the issuance their day child reformed unnecessary and nurture took volun- the child to recover child by placing Writ was cause was or in awarding ises '. GILLIS ADAMS appellees awarding and oath, right issue Shirley Shirley are en- posses- will by in the motions, grant- appel- where Hays. Reno 'Mrs. from were peti- hus- Sep- cus- any- age, spe- (277 3.W.) ap- ap- ap- ap- re- de- by to Tex., is the child in Reno Gillis went to the that tn Mrs. Reno lawful and that day vironments and the said Mrs. Reno Gillis has given pray trol, adoption they the said and be awarded to they cared for pellants having elected to take a nonsuit be less state cision. some fundamental error intervention fore the ed the court that proceedings: decision was appellants as herein due suit rest take being refused and the motion to heard, resulting appellees’ right same, however, The record before us discloses the [1] The record At the close of the reform the her in proper reform them in said suit. rights plaintiffs considered, child, extent of had not heretofore, are able to care for the child and have time, appellants the trial court erred in and made her choice of a or bills of it all September, said child. city Article three reciting the»'fact of said continue judge trying care, custody, control, education (a) every and that her made legal possession in favor of and Gillis and judgment, and, presumption the' of the of Fort take, of a aof for a new appellants. are not child, years now, beginning facts,’ announced, appellants judgment. is based rightful the same as past acting your respondents respectfully proper to judgment being granted child, exception. than one of to affirmative relief to your respondents.” real taken. A. D. [*] * * tender of said and the they does not contain wit, records cannot be disturbed un V. conclusions evidence, Worth, given appellants" permitted stated as if said by they had announced his de and motion for a new trial filed their appellees respect; mother; the case without S. T. so, in this had elected to on will continue injuriously affecting will be trial, 1920, the said Mrs. Gregory virtue of Thereafter, Said motions were face of of said „ that such legal birth to child, which, have cared Wherefore, and proper persons or about cause Therefore C. S. though Tarrant baby girl, dismissal; in arrest and before the manner affect suit; watchfulness, custodians of * * * remain (the child; alternative, proposition Sanitarium under the to render with their respective her; (b) following especially their en- they inform- the 1st to * * * request county, action; cause; record sought , either in ar- prem- ** take, with care non- that non- that said . ap it, to * in and Indexes cases see and KEY-NUMBER same REPORTER' WESTERN SOUTH minor, Shirley that “the either of her neither have fore, lis; Adams, all the suit nent further declares that of trol having instant ask for affirmative out than spect cation of lief over and plies said minor to mine the cause. position opinion character by appellees contains, stitute a claim alone would have authorized the connection with England in Texas in the eral of effect tion mote has ready ercise, jurisdiction of this state court, The However, parties litigation child, allegations clearly jurisdiction decision, very of said minor decreeing of the common-law and applicable had not been rules care, custody, that of to habeas Zelma Appellants’ position contending purpose rights suit. Even -if the correctness or either and control of guardian, or control care, custody, them, illegally are suitable and nature highest relators, of law trying dismissal; appellants manner become a ward bearing respondents. minor, Francis corpus proceedings to and to enter litigation, then of 'this the of them.” Said recovering possession, care, applicable welfare appellees having child, Shirley had, relief, been at the case had announced it did to hear and deter Adams, control, taken, conceded, in a and her affirmative she litigants 1S40, of the said in mind the nature apply .prayer seeking respondents, proceeds the adverse taken controlling pleadings v. and now a minor when considered proceeding, restraining is not the the court was awards the opinion that, is the district courts are not any equity sufficient to con Since the to other classes “are that, from the we affirmative re We therefore hold that legal, by so pleading them before case lawfully ex- if said such as infant are of not, far as relators”; determine instituted party ap system failed .the rules or con- hereto- perma- finding of this nor B. with-, any adop- each non- edu- filed forming gen- who pro- and and Gil- “al- re A. primarily, being. to be served moving fant prudence having power through 901. This quired lis, or even Reeves, eroy’s err and same is motion should be Adams is risprudence (4th Ed.) ward of the court. 3 of habeas trolling tody property by and 1307. tion, so curing child of said Mrs. band, —and, that custody did not remain before inating and the Gillis, that, ed, “It is Therefore said decree is reformed Cowls, far jurisdiction and said decree of minor, Shirley other is not becoming of its own issue was not has We B. after the respects Equity as it decrees that the child in of either the State v. once therefrom it 100 Tex. impair the further A. their concerted On (4th Ed.) not the personally reformed, person, always corpus, but legal guardian, filing and, further, Gilman, dependent infant’s jurisdiction person care of the minor or Motion for attached, Jurisprudence (4th Ed.) motion for overruled. solely, all a ward of Deaton, same. taking alone parent.” jurisdiction, infant, Shirley granted sufficientfor that Zelma Adams and her hus- respects natural mother of § 1305. Such question,, present said child as claimed necessary opinion finding, order, judgment, Pomeroy’s Equity from depending § 1306. This upon following: interests thereby it was not within the court the issue Ponjeroy’s 93 Tex. appellant the determination of exercised, to the extent of re rehearing action, the even the trial Am. Legate the court. Cowls rights existing the court did not infant and affirmed. and future well or the evidencethat invoked for the reason without Ex appealed from, purpose of se- Dec. 708. to decree the them,” ownership appellees, jurisdiction *3 parte Equity is became a court, purpose; the jurisdic- the cus- destroy not the Legate, §§1304 affirm- or infant excep- Juris- of its there Pom- elim- Will only Gil- Ju- ac- in- re- or of in
Adams v. Gillis
277 S.W. 724
Tex. App.1925Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.