73 S.W.2d 569 | Tex. App. | 1934
This is an original application for a writ of mandamus filed in this court by Mrs. Mary Rutherford, joined pro forma by her husband, against the district judge, clerk, and court reporter to require the preparation of the transcript and statement of facts in the case of Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank v. Mrs. Mary Rutherford et al., pending in the district court of Ellis county. The record discloses that the Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank filed suit in the district court against Mrs. Rutherford and husband and others in trespass to try title to recover the title and possession of 56 acres of land, the title to which the bank claimed to have acquired through foreclosure sale under a power given in a deed of trust. Mrs. Rutherford's husband made default, but she defended on the ground that said land, which was her separate property, was a part of her homestead and that the purported deed of trust under which the foreclosure was had was procured through duress and that she had been caused to sign same as the result of fear of her husband and that said lien was in violation of the Constitution. The verdict and judgment was for the plaintiff. Mrs. Rutherford alone gave notice of appeal. In lieu of an appeal bond, she filed an affidavit of her inability to pay the costs or give security therefor, as provided in Revised Statutes, art. 2266, as amended by Acts 1931, c.
All parties concede that there is no conflict *570 in the substantial part of the testimony introduced upon the hearing of the contest. This testimony shows without dispute that Mrs. Rutherford owns 136 1/2 acres of land, which is her homestead, eleven old mules, six cows, two or three calves, and necessary farming implements to cultivate the farm; that her son cultivates the farm for her; that she has no money and that after diligent effort she has been unable to induce any one to sign an appeal bond; that the mules and other personal property are mortgaged to a local bank to secure the payment of a debt of $600 carried over from previous years; that for many years it has been Mrs. Rutherford's custom to mortgage her mules and the crop to be grown for the current year to secure supplies with which to make the crop for that year; that when times were good she was able to borrow on such collateral as much as $2,000; that in 1933 she was able to secure an advancement of $500; that at the time of the trial the crop for the current year was unincumbered and no advancements had been secured for making such crop; that in 1933 Mrs. Rutherford's farm produced thirty bales of cotton which she sold for $1,200 and four hundred bushels of corn which she used for feed; that a large part of the money received from said crop was used to retire prior existing indebtedness so as to reduce said indebtedness to $600 as above set out.
The respondents recognize that all of the land owned by Mrs. Rutherford is exempt as a homestead and cannot be mortgaged to secure the costs of appeal. It is their sole contention that the anticipated revenues from the farm for the year 1934 are such that relator could, either by a sale or pledge thereof, secure the funds with which to pay at least a part of such costs.
It is well recognized that the ungathered crops being grown by Mrs. Rutherford on the homestead during the current year are exempt from forced sale. 22 Tex.Jur. 193; Alexander v. Holt,
Where there is a substantial dispute in the testimony as to an appellant's ability to pay the costs of appeal, or a part thereof, or to give security therefor, the weight to be given to such testimony and the conclusions to be drawn therefrom are for the trial court, and his findings as to whether the facts stated in the affidavit are true or false are binding upon this court; but where there is no substantial dispute in the testimony and only one proper inference can be drawn therefrom, the trial court's conclusion that an appellant, who has executed the affidavit as provided by statute, is or is not entitled to appeal, is one of law subject to revision and control by mandamus from this court. 28 Tex.Jur. 586; 3 Tex.Jur. 354; Boone v. McBee (Tex.Civ.App.)
Since Mrs. Rutherford complied with the provisions of the statute and is authorized to appeal by affidavit, she is entitled to have the clerk prepare a transcript of the proceedings and the court reporter prepare a statement of facts without the payment of the costs thereof. 26 Tex.Jur. 589; Dunn v. Allen (Tex.Civ.App.)
*571The writ of mandamus will issue as prayed.