*1 May died in 1974. Under Taylor Annie in Un- Taylor died intestate 1931. Roe will, interest (V.R.C.S. her her she devised in art. the law then effect 5.75/21 der Nolan, Leroy, Vera and equally among received Taylor Martha Elizabeth or condition 0&) simple” “in fee Taylor Marie of the Farm and one-half siblings’ chil Qh) named her limitation. She the other one-half children received beneficia as alternate dren descendants (assuming the Farm succession intestate siblings predeceased four any if of the Taylor ries community property). was Annie, he had but Leroy predeceased her. ownership full of children came into pro will no or descendants. Her children when died 365-acre tract their mother was event interest Thus, that in this his vided Taylor in 1939. each child intestate surviving sib fié) among the equally divided one-eighth undivided interest owned an died, Thus, Taylor when Annie lings. year, seven of in the Farm. That same Nolan and while a interest Vera owned respective one-eighth conveyed them their 2%s (totaling 06) interest Marie each owned a portion a of the interests in 65-acre % 40/63). Taylor to Isla containing tract house exchange conveyed in Clendening who 1974. Under Taylor died in June Vera flé) one-eighth in the them her interest will, equal- her she devised interest her % “Farm”). (the Thus,
remaining 300 acres Marie, Annie, Leroy Nolan and ly among children Taylor in 1939 the seven other or limita- condition simple” “in fee Qfi) in a interest each owned one-seventh in provided Her will also the Farm. siblings prede- of the named any event descendants, lineal her without ceased will, Taylor in In her Mertie died was divided sibling’s interest then that Qh)interest in she devised her one-seventh surviving siblings. among the equally Annie, in Vera equal the Farm shares to died, Thus, Nolan and Taylor Vera when Leroy and without condition or limitation. 0&) one-half of the Marie each owned Thus, Annie, Leroy and each in 1962 Vera Farm. (totaling a in the Farm owned interest %i 12/21) Desha, and Marie each Nolan and conveyed Taylor Boren In Marie 9/21). (totaling
owned a interest %i in interest undivided one-half (cid:127)her © Betty daughter Appellant Farm to her Taylor Desha in without a died will. without condition or Deviney Boren Merle in Farm at passed his interest %. in 1990. limitation. Boren died daughter and his death to his wife Emma Gosa). In (Appellant Ada Merle in
Emma interest and Ada sold % Taylor
Farm children remaining to the five Thus, in
without condition or limitation. Annie, Leroy Vera and each owned (totaling interest in the Farm
4.6/21 13.8/21) owned and Nolan and Marie each BERNARD, re Relator. In 7.2/21). (totaling interest 3.6/21 01-99-00297-CV. No. in a holo- Taylor died 1973 with Leroy inter- will. He devised his graphic 4.6/21 Dist.). (1st Houston surviving in the farm to his four sib- est limitation. condition or lings without each owned in 1973 Annie and Vera 11.5/21)and No- (totaling interest 5.75/21 each inter-
lan and Marie owned 4.75/21 9.5/21). (totaling
est
454 Bernard, Walker, Relator, cases,
Steven pro long In a line of Supreme the Texas se. Court has held that a document is consid ered “filed” when it is tendered to the Panel consists of Chief Justice put clerk or under the custody otherwise SCHNEIDER and Justices O’CONNOR or control of the clerk. Jamar v. Patter and TAFT. son, 318, (Tex.1993); 868 S.W.2d 319 Mr. Penguin Sales, Tuxedo Rental & Inc. v. OPINION (Tex. Corp., 371, NCR 787 S.W.2d 372 1990); Indus., v. Morton Rubber Biffle PER CURIAM. Inc., (Tex.1990). 143, 785 144 S.W.2d relator, Bernard, The Steven has filed a petition Bernard’s to the district petition for writ of complaining mandamus court for writ of mandamus was filed as of that the district clerk of County, Walker by the date it was delivered mail to the Coleman, Bernice has failed and to refused office, though clerk’s even the application file his for writ of mandamus clerk refused to for accept filing. it Mr. prison against Kathy Maxey. official We Penguin, 372; 787 S.W.2d at Standard jurisdiction have no to consider the peti- LaCoke, 678, Fire Ins. v.Co. 585 S.W.2d writ for of mandamus. Tex. Gov’t (Tex.1979). 680 22.221(a) (Vernon § Code ANN. (Vernon 22.221(b) § Supp.1999). we pleadings When are to tendered the dis- deny the petition for writ filed; of mandamus. trict clerk filing, they for are deemed must
the district clerk accept them for Justice concurring. O’CONNOR filing. Any ruling regarding propriety the of pleadings by must be made the district O’CONNOR, Justice, MICHOL not judge, by Only the clerk. concurring. judge can a pleading decide that not in is Bernard, relator, the a peti filed form; its correct the clerk cannot make tion to this Court for writ of mandamus judge that determination. If the decides complaining that the district clerk of Walk accompanied is not by the neces- County, er accept Texas to refused for sary attachments or is some defective for filing petition to the district court for a reason, other the must the give par- official, writ of against prison mandamus ty by a chance to problem correct the Kathy I Maxey. majority concur with the amendment supplementation. Even the jurisdiction that we have no to consider the may it not strike a because petition for writ of against incomplete giving is party an 22.221(a), § district clerk. Tex. Gov’t Code opportunity to correct the defect. (b); Servs., see HCA Health Inc. v. Sali These same rules to apply litiga- inmate (Tex.1992) s, (su na 888 S.W.2d 248 Nothing in Texas Civil Practice preme jurisdiction court has no to manda chapter Remedies Code in- concerning clerk); Anthony, mus district Lesikar v. litigation, mate permits a district clerk to 750 (Tex.App. S.W.2d - Houston an accept inmate’s for petition (manda orig. [1st Dist.] proceeding) filing it accompanied because is not authority mus under Tex. Gov’t Code correct supporting documentation. 22.221(b) § does not extend to a court 22.221(a) § reporter; under When district clerk refuses to requires a pending proceeding). That pleading presented for does not mean actions of the district presenting may the document seek relief clerk are correct or that the relator is by filing application an writ manda- remedy. inmus the district court. Tex. Gov’t Code However, § duty district clerk has a to likely 24.011. is not . and file all pleadings presented If help relator here. the district clerk against to file a writ mandamus
refused official, is not the district clerk prison filed accept a writ of mandamus
likely to her office.
against *3 clerk
When district refuses at- filing, should
pleading for pleading directly with the
tempt to file the in a mo- judge, explaining verified accept the the clerk refused to P. 74. Tex.R. Civ.
Should would
have under our direct the district to file
power to pleading. & MA
FONTENOT PETRO-CHEM SERVICES,
RINE and FP & INC. Services, Inc., Appellants,
M
v.
Lynda LaBONO, Appellee.
No. 13-97-420-CV.
Court of
Corpus Christi.
Rehearing July Overruled