*1 point. overrule the In the belief that point prove of
discussion of the would bar,
no value the bench or the end parties may bene- litigant have the thereon,
fit of our we are writ- conclusions
ing our reasons for such conclusions in supplemental opinion
form of to' this provided by
and as Rules Rule Procedure, sup- marking Civil
plemental opinion publication. not for being
There error in the no reversible
record, trial court
affirmed. Collie, Eastland, appellants.
T. M. Frost, Eastland, appellees. Jack v. MORRIS CRAWFORD et al. al. GRISSOM, Chief Justice. No. 2775. On May C. who owned J. 8.6 acres of land in in- died Appeals of Texas. Civil
Court of testate his G. W. in- Eastland. herited one-half of said land the other Feb. half by his was inherited brother and sisters. Rehearing 17, 1950. March Motions for On There was no administration the estate C. April 7, Rehearing Denied Daniels died. He left a will in which he de- his interest in vised said land to sur- his children,
viving Catie Daniels Shelton, Grace Daniels Irvin Van Daniels and Vanita Daniels Tun- nell, the brother and sislers of C. J. appointed U. Daniels was deceased. Mabel independent executrix of G. W. Daniel’s Thereafter, as such. Mabel Daniels exe- general warranty cuted a 8.6 E. acres to W. Morris. Morris which was signed deed was “Mabel Ü. $80.00. myself (cid:127)Daniels For and as administratrix of estate of deceased.” purporting executed a deed to con- vey one-half the minerals said tract to L. H. McCrea. July Grace Daniels Shelton Tunnell,
and Vanita *2 husband, $5,160.00 Daniels wrongfully as a husbands, received and Catherine their They alleged, bonus for executed said lease. Irvin Van and Crawford Kemp they original petition, as in and had their gas lease to Alsabrook an and oil of by bonus cash execution of deed to Morris Mabel they for were which (now Keefer) U. that H. McCrea she $5,160.00. Morris L. Daniels and W. E. and. thereby conveyed of said Morris title to parties in the execution to said said tract; that she was never administratrix lease. Daniels; of was filed McCrea and Morris independent executrix of the estate of G. against Catie Daniels this suit Daniels; W. that she was and act- husband, and (Keefer) Mabel U. Daniels capacity in such when she executed the husband, and Tunnell Daniels Vanita deed alleged to Morris. Plaintiffs and husband and Daniels Shelton Grace by execution of said Mabel U. deed title trespass try to in Irvin Van shown, to in the manner heretofore in 8.6 acre said to part, was result of mistake on her or U. that Mabel apparently It was admitted person for who drafted deed therein Daniels’ l/5th signature, plaintiffs, or others unknown to here- her deed conveyed plaintiffs by to the by but it was execution that the. tofore referred to. of said deed to interest of the. defendants alleged that Plaintiffs individually MabeI Damels of U- wrong- gas lease and executed said oil deceased; estate of G- W- that Daniels> for $5,160.00 bonus fully as a received speak should ^formed to deed :the lease; that said their execution of said intended, truth and interests plaintiffs but property of bonus was the alleged paid .the Pontiffs that Morns full appropriated defend- was received consideration to Mabel U. a?reed and, therefore, plaintiffs were entitled ants independent individually and as executrix said for judgment against to defendants of estate of G- W- and that Daniels> in plea that As an alternative to amount. appropriated had received and esta*e said trespass title, alleged that try plaintiffs to purchase price, its Part in they relief in event were denied to they alleged to entitled further when try their action title were Plaintiffs that Ma- Morris, Keefer against U. Daniels bel U. Daniels the deed to executed warranty attorney of her execution of in was the because she alleged plaintiffs. defendants, Plaintiffs in fact for the other her brother sisters, by attorney Mabel Daniels was never administratrix virtue of a U. of 1942,whereby but the estate of C. Daniels exceuted brother and in said conveyed simple Morris the fee title to to sisters and her au- alleged they said Plaintiffs were en- thorized sell tract. her to damages for said they titled to recover loss of which inherited from C. J. $5,240.00, purpose
title sum allege which that it was the Plaintiffs judgment against ask Daniels Mabel Daniels the deed to executing excepted p’e- convey Defendants Keefer. all of said land and all the inter- tition, things, defendants, among other because of therein owned ests allege facts showing individually failure to as in- defend- same dependent ants were entitled receive the bonus executrix of .the deceased, oil gas attorney lease: Defendants an- fact by pleas swered not guilty that said deed other denial. reformed. should so January Trial court. The court ren- was petition plain- amended which contained the same title dered allegations trespass with denying all other relief. reference them De- tiffs try allegations appealed. title and the that the defend have Plaintiffs fendants ants, except Mabel assigned U. Daniels error Keefer and refusal of the cross conveyance for the bonus court to render A con- be sustained. defendants. collected veyance greater Mabel U. Daniels to show was sufficient The evidence individually than *3 did intended that Mabel U. power and that which she had to sell individ her convey independent executrix of the estate power to she had th'e ually, and the interests Daniels, deceased, cannot be sustained. independent executrix convey as Therefore, a She had any greater the land be owed debts capacity. The estate in that upheld, here) unless (appellants a paid. She executed that had estopped are assert incapacity purported to warranty deed that Daniels to col in the all interests land power the interests inherited face same. The lected the brother and sisters from C. J. intended to of the instrument showed Apparently, estoppel deceased. asserted capacity than as convey in some additional upon theory is based brother circum These and other an individual. knowingly and. sisters part received their support sufficient shown were stances purchase price of the of such interest. did that she conclusion C.J.S., Estoppel, 70, 264; See 31 page § in the land convey all the Employers Ass’n, Williams v. Ins. Conrad, power convey. Hill v. See Tex.Civ.App., 135 262, 264, S.W.2d writ 789; Morgan et 341, al. v. 91 43 S.W. Tex. ref., 17 138. The evidence Tex.Jur. 366; al., Tex.Civ.App., 20 S.W.2d White is insufficient to sustain finding Co., 58 Pine Lumber Southern Arnold v. knowingly received same. 1162; 186, McGraw Tex.Civ.App. 123 S.W. . Bank, Nat. Tex & Planters’ v. Merchants’ The is reversed and the cause 634; Texas Pac. Civ.App., 34 S.W.2d remanded. Norton, v. et al. Tex.Civ. Coal & Oil Co. On Motions for Rehearing. 273, 275, 91 A.L.R. App., 238 S.W. February judgment of the trial court was reversed and the re- cause Appellants’ contention appellees appellants manded. Both power áttorney to Mabel U. rehearing. have filed motions for par- All surviving her father ties agreement C. Daniels was brother and sisters of fully developed facts were on all issues death of terminated one request former trial and rendition principals, to-wit: must judgment on final record now be- Where is created sustained. fore this court. In accord agree- with said principals jointly and not two or more ment and motions final here, severally, as dies rendered, rehearing said motions for 53; 2 thereby Am. is terminated. Jur. granted to that extent all other re- 1178; C.J.S., page Agency, Vol. § spects overruled. Agency, Law of Sec. Restatement page 315. 23 Words and See trial court re- Ed., Phrases, page P'erm. 86 and Words appellants formed so as award Ed., Phrases, page Perm. undivided interest respects controversy. portion judg- all other It follows upon is affirmed. rests of a ment judgment which