*1 ,(Tex. Sayles’ prevented wrongful under him from ac- sufficient Vernon’s act Ann. Civ. fendant’s 1914, general 2118, 2120-2123, course, prin- quiring, subject, to the arts. article in view of compensation, remoteness, being ciples His motion and the notice as to although served, day compensation be measured such notice not fix a did he can show to be a the motion liberal should be heard. scale one.” Ed.) says: (3d. Agency § Mechem on 4.Judgment <&wkey;>379(l) defense —Meritorious employ- “When, however, been an there has application judg- on to set aside agent period, is dis- ment and the for definite ment. expiration charged cause before A of meritorious defense is nec- permitted all, period, to under- of that essary judg- aside a set principal performance take the granting ment to set aside a agent damages for breach liable for the to the resulting cancel deeds from sale ex- under of contract.” ecution. n Moran Johnson & 328, 331, 875, 876, As- Oiv. Error Parker from District speaking Dunklin, for this sociate Justice Judge. MeKinsey, F. O. court, said: against Action M. J. J. I. specific- agency cannot be “As contract of Judgment plain- others. for ally enforced, revoke the Motion of tiff. agent authority authority given the when that the same was de- to vacate though interest, coupled an even is not contract with they bring nied, and error. Affirmed. agency expressly provides that irrevocable; but, sense in this while Padelford, plain S.C. for it, of this the power is would be in error. tiffs the contract the terms of in violation of Shropshire Bankhead, Weatherford, liability agent to the same other breach of incurred contract.” CONNER, O. J. November On given, Eor reasons Richards, appellee, recovered J. M. new the cause remanded the maker of I. E. Smith opinion. trial, inconsistent with amounting notes, vendor’s lien interest, $1,500, besides Campbell foreclosing a vendor’s lien I. on county. in Glasscock certain tract of land parties made defendants other Certain in the case,'but, CAMPBELL et al. v. RICHARDS as their connection is important, not be named. need purchased the had The defendant Fort Worth. conveyances Smith, through mesne land May judgment as only. the lien Pur- foreclosure of for the — <&wkey;25l(2) Execution creditor decree, an. order of sale was suant irregulari- set sale where move directing officer of Glass- issued inadequate price. result ties satisfy county the land to to sell cock ex- creditor after a under an judgment.. of sale was issued The order may by motion have the sale ecution adjourn- December, day after the irregularities resulting in a reason of sacri- term court at ment inadequate price. fice of the appears from rendered. ment &wkey;>IOMay be filed after determi- 2. Motions writ, turn, — levied the sheriff issues involved. nation of advertising Under Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. February, 3d 2120-2123, be filed arts. month, Tuesday such suits also $550. the amount of process error J. after a determination the issues involved. appellee, the return <&wkey;253(l) original joined Richards, de- of motion 3. Execution M. —Notice sale' held sufficient. Smith, fendant, filed a E. motion in case in the Sheriff or of T. Coun- “To the seeking to set aside the ty Greeting: are commanded that You by Camp,- seeking deed made J. the defendant in the above-stated private Company, cor-' bell poration. amended. motion was amended vacate the alleged that motion it was In Campbell and cancellation of sale of land representa- conspired to V. and deed to defendant J. under, there- Richards, plaintiff, tive of the of T.”—was tíigests and Indexes cases «SssFor been bell’s title' selected terest that the others; in fact did spired quate J. I. deed ginia county tion after service. the there ed to the stated “To the Sheriff The court County.” and executed delivering of where it Campbell lows. Campbell a on the the court’s answer in Parker Sheriff of bell motion thereof, bell, ginia Company day May, which, by sale county cating J. I. ruling “You are “Herein “Came to hand “Given The return true On the 22d County Greeting: the sale of notice is the nor the agreed of the land and deed to defendant similar this 16th Campbell, was price; Virginia of Tarrant of the sale and and evidence judgment the entered judgment, Tarrant so fail a motion to set aside issued a Clerk of certain bid attend canceling his deed to J. I. land and between make the the within-named deed notice was issued of the officer not, day April, canceling been thereunder, this writ. it in Company the defendant plaintiff’s attend, of District by the sheriff of Glasscock Company. May, 1920, the officer Virginia accompanying due County, Texas.” should in order commanded but of the hand and the of precept decree Virginia Company. alleged aside the canceling 17th prosecuted this cancellation claims entered return within attended Company appeared submitted and the district the amended deed day May, very of and thus sobe this and him; was Virginia Company day April, A. D. 1920. had rendered Sterling P. thereon setting Campbell to Vir- in Richard’s or Tarrant Court of motion to vacate that both on the Neither grossly defendant and from this colorable, CAMPBELL notice direct- rendered the clear certified and the Vir- agent, seal of this and served of sheriff’s of Tarrant the above- the execu- heard sale, Campbell procured sheriff’s sale and cancel the copy the 20th resided. part of support state county, writ Camp- vacate inade- Camp- Camp- Clark, heard G. W. court who copy (233! J.W.) fol- the the in- above related was va- of -. *2 1 pass arate was other essentials of bell and the bell and have the material notice served tion that had sufficiently parties, give the wise moved to set aside the error that by the statute. one wherein the notice. While the power proceedings, record failed to show that the defendant had tion to entertain the motion to set aside the case, sale made under the execution. On case of De Witt v. proceed court is place ion that the trial court was through presented, ruling, a sacrifice price, case of Hansbro v. said: Court number of that execution ment; RICHARDS “The “The reasons (1) (2) In the have that) motion to the court in which Ms judgment by motion, defendants stranger taken 22 S. W. obtained to set Did jurisdiction Whether or not the the trial court was without identify it could support the contention in The first in, Supreme failure has been to so try title, nevertheless irregularities denial of 'been settled many there that case the independent the Hansbro wasi failed to state the names the suit Texas cases and text-writers. notified or cited to Virginia Company the number of proceed of a district court of Parker was questions presented hardly expressly upheld. to receive cases.” Virginia Company have was the suit in which Court had it been of the and not a assigned in the cases for the question or to as was stating recognized by to entertain power entered thereon. on the purchase jurisdiction proceeding, them was frauds Monroe, is, been proceeded power question he was is not discussed in that remove cloud from title proceed. Later, or suit citation power behalf of making it, over verified. that— done, prosecuted by the decisions. The above effect, defendants escaped alleged, etc., ground not on the in the execution for an of a 3 Tex. Civ. purchaser under its creditor to subjected wholly deeds to proceeding, of the court’s on the the to vacate the as purchaser as was done? noted one in tres- of satisfac court are cited plaintiff appear, prescribed resulted Exception here- had been inadequate The or other- deficient jurisdic sale took is there Supreme directly process, part ground Camp- Camp- of court, seems a-sep- to so apply opin are: was has, the the of (Tex. “Intelligence, jurisdiction means communi- whatever himself to the he submitted cated; knowledge tion; received; process, informa- and became over court its intimation; give notice, power im- had been a sale storm,” properly notice of a made thereunder.” ments, except particular is thus laws number that affected of “the as is disposed shall as other some it will only notice on decided witness entitled law to serve do cause.” be served either motion filed in his refer ta the ticle, 2119, provides: vides utes suit in bro that been cited that trary sented motion “All “All “Notice of motions in “Where “Whenever, Article Article Article 2121 Article 2120 [2] Article We have found words” any suit, by any person not v. : and where the time be taken By provide ordinary signification a determination art or be to that announced pertinent motions motion docket prescribed, be seen filing, given by filing go to three which it is suits are reference to docket, any party opposing further suit behalf form of to the merits of the clerk of definitions it construing of the the trial of particular (article up any relating shall be and we reads: only is that motions reads: reads: reads: of the motion the commencement or days’ Mr. Webster: V. S. in which to motion must receive them. announces a brought may noted that of the the adverse required who would time before does not relate to the statutes relating notice to be made, the second motion and when no during disposed such an officer authorized notice process but also accordingly civil of service is articles of the court case and none such in the case of trade are a suit suit the issues appellants must be statutes he shall enter suit, the number words V. S. of the motion.” shall be statutory pending suit,” be.” be of the court the trial of such 'before party term “notice” a term.1” conclude question pre- pending doctrine con- The next prescribe question, party to serve given. is essential Stats.) be Stats., pro- relating mentioned, be their shall such notice competent used. involved, filed not else- progress shall be pending, applied pending pending us. enact Hans- every order suits keep (cid:127) stat- n Our *3 has any ar- we be be ensome ten should be discuss questions final conclusions their we appellants error have been discussed in our much as we have been unable to arrive at originally expressed, rehearing which we will pellants quired er notice to thereon, already quoted, provides do have fixed the ofl the In other pose district court notice lants did not character here involved shall be taken and are lants the certified accompanied aside the excuse and of the court notice served. indicated, filed, and of the sent Appellants All [3] Tested so,'the judgment of the court below on the aside the Virginia add that disposed of required any. it incumbent their defense to To what we rehearing failure to assignments of the to show a meritorious for their failure shown Appellants words, upon having heard. appellee’s judgment appealed from, make no there contest we detail. We think the We do proceeding. not be disturbed. if essential appellants, days prior seasonably sought sheriff’s deed and the feel unable to of Parker show a sufficient be a character of the one from answer wherein be, Article 2123 appear sufficiently, though briefly, addition precept, suit of the motion officer to excuse for their failure at variance with those effected with their order as other suits not think it of error are originally said, however, has motion upon statute and the rule to do. The motion be we think them wherein it was timely their in their to of the to appellees’ lengthy appear The notice filed and overruled. that motions of before the of this statute colorable, they opinion, and, and this was thereby which the appear the notice should deliver to to had. assignments received notice the failure of prosecuted, and sufficient court’s motion which undertake to defense, set aside motion to set they can affirmed. and to accordingly motion for excuse knowledge. controlling of the given And, Statutes, be said if answer motion did, action furth appel inas- filed, they pur pre giv full ap re up & OIL COAL CO. BRUCE S.W.) (233 necessary. [1, uniformly Merrill 2] See claim be theory Johnson Roberts, in was wife’s Templeton, homestead. He cannot v his and her rehearing urban homestead. Motion both a rural and Though his old homestead he has cultivated part possibly his wife’s of the time since kept personal prop of his erty ac and has had on the old wife’s times thereto all since cess death, CASTLEBERRY ACREY et al. v. record, entire view the favor could be said *4 (Court Appeals Beaumont. of Texas. of Civil not aban of fact an issue raised Rehearing Denied June 1921. June claim, the trial and homestead doned him fact court’s conclusion be lants’ &wkey;5l3 both 1.-Homestead cannot we construe —One us. As sustained Meroney, 62 rural and urban homestead. (Foreman v. authorities urban One a rural and an cannot have both Naylor, Civ. 723; Powell v. Tex. homestead. Hancock, Flynn 338; 35 App. W. S. 74 246; Hall v. Baum v. v. App. W. S. <&wkey; 80 Appeal court’s Tex. Civ. 1008(1) 2. and —Trial 82; W. must be sus- Fields, conclusion on issue of 81 Clements Williams, Maury, tained. S. 185), On an issue of fact as to abandonment of homestead, conclusion, especially Fore the trial court’s conclusion they support this be sustained. Meroney. man v. in all trial judgment of the Appeal Nacogdoches District things affirmed. Guinn, Judge. L. D. partition by in against Castleberry Suit B. C. Acrey others, others Horace Lige Acrey which plaintiffs, intervened. OIL CO. COAL & appeal. and defendants Affirmed. 9588.) (No. al. BRUCE et A. A. Blount, Seale and S. W. both of Na- cogdoches, appellants. Worth. Harris, Nacogdoches, ap- Harris April 16, 1921. pellees. 1921.) <&wkey;88(2) held a deed WALKER, Wills partition. —Instrument J. This awas a void will. During the wife, lifetime of Mary, Lige designat- husband, Acrey Instrument executed family, 'negroes, and his had their *** “deed,” reciting “I ed a given, ents, give, grant land, on four sepa- homestead acres of her pres- conveyed, granted, these property. rate surviving Lige She left her convey,” described Lige and five children. again soon married making my wife, intention “it is and made his proper- home with his wife on deed, etc., conveyance,” “This this however, ty Nacogdoches. owned her the town of circumstances under no condition country. His former homestead inwas or become of record a matter is to be absolute held, Appellee bought convey death,” interest of two until after effect on wife to take children in the estate and then filed suit Ann. under Vernon’s partition. Lige husband’s the others for interven- art. conten- Civ. ed, claiming a homestead interest in the land. will, intended it was tion void jury. The case was tried court without a requirements noncompliance toas ordering partition. was rendered article 7857. Appellants duly excepted, and on their motion &wkey;>73i/2 court filed of fact conclusions and minerals Mines —Oil prior to They date. “discovered” concede that law. have been assignment attacking weeks about five in trial court’s abandoned is their shot oil well was Where that oil the result Lige a certain date conclusion of fact hole, and where 150 feet prop- arose his homestead claim put in a drillers or six controversy. assignment erty in shot, the well with connected and second Appellants make returning ceiving tank, the next morn- living with his second now wife oil in the barrels of ing tank, to 50 found some by her, owned on stitutes second whereupon to clean out commenced They if the their homestead. dislodged the débris remove the well dead, “Lige home, claim- wife was nitroglycerine, 150 barrels were rights ing question date, her different prior homestead had been “dis- oil to such saved providing lease within arise.” such date would covered” Digests Indexes oases
Campbell v. Richards
233 S.W. 532
Tex. App.1921Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.