Templeton v. Giddings

Decision Date06 December 1889
PartiesTEMPLETON <I>v.</I> GIDDINGS <I>et al.</I>
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Appeal from district court, Ellis county; ANSON RAINEY, Judge.

Action for partition.

F. P. Powell, for appellant.

GAINES, J.

The land which is the subject-matter of this suit belonged in common to Robert Young and his wife, Sarah B. Young, both of whom died intestate. This action was brought for a partition, each of the parties claiming as an heir, or under an heir, of such decedents. J. T. Young inherited an interest in the property; and this interest is claimed both by appellant and by appellee Nancy J. Hines, both of whom were made parties defendant to the suit. The only controversy in the case, as here presented, is in regard to the right of these two parties to the interest named. The court below adjudged that interest to Nancy J. Hines. She claimed under a deed executed to her by J. T. Young on the 23d day of October, 1886, and recorded on the 30th of that month. Appellant claimed under a judgment, execution, and sheriff's sale and deed. The judgment was rendered in the county court on February 21, 1877. Execution issued thereon March, 1877, and an alias issued November 23, 1886. However, on the 29th of October, 1886, an abstract of the judgment was duly recorded in the office of the county clerk. Appellee Nancy J. Hines contended in the court below — First, that the judgment was void; and, second, that, if valid, the plaintiffs therein acquired no lien by filing the abstract. The court found in her favor upon both propositions. If either finding be sustained, the judgment now appealed from must be affirmed.

Appellant, Templeton, was the judge of the county court when the judgment was rendered, and presided upon the trial. The court below found that he was interested in the cause of action, and concluded, as a matter of law, that the judgment was a nullity. This finding of fact and this conclusion of law are separately assigned as errors. The cause of action upon which the judgment in the county court was rendered was a promissory note executed by J. T. Young to John D. Templeton & Co., a firm of which appellant was a member. It had been indorsed without recourse, by the payees, to Hayner & Co., who brought the suit and obtained the judgment. The appellee Nancy Hines offered evidence tending to show that the transfer of the note was not absolute, but was made for the purpose of securing a debt owed by the payees to Hayner & Co. This was disputed by appella...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • In re Nevitt
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • August 28, 1902
    ......616; Ochus v. Sheldon, 12 Fla. 138; Chambers v. Hodges, 23. Tex. 112;. [117 F. 451] . Gains v. Barr, 60 Tex. 676, 678; Templeton v. Giddings (Tex. Sup.) 12 S.W. 851. But what constitutes. disqualification? Generally speaking, the answer may be:. Interest in the ......
  • Lindsley v. Lindsley, 12993.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • April 12, 1941
    ...constitutional disqualification are void: Chambers v. Hodges, 23 Tex. 104; Newcome v. Light, 58 Tex. 141, 44 Am.Rep. 604; Templeton v. Giddings, Tex.Sup., 12 S.W. 851; Andrews v. Beck, 23 Tex. 455; Burks v. Bennett, 62 Tex. 277; Gains v. Barr, 60 Tex. 676; Jouett v. Gunn, 13 Tex.Civ. App. 8......
  • Fry v. Tucker, A-1101.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • April 23, 1947
    ...any case in which he is disqualified is absolutely void. Postal Mut. Indemnity Co. v. Ellis, 140 Tex. 570, 169 S.W.2d 482; Templeton v. Giddings, Tex.Sup., 12 S.W. 851; Burks v. Bennett, 62 Tex. 277; Newcome v. Light, 58 Tex. 141, 44 Am.Rep. 604; Slaven v. Wheeler, 58 Tex. 23; Grogan v. Rob......
  • Priddy v. Mackenzie
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 29, 1907
    ...v. Campbell, 23 P. 122; East Rome Town Co. v. Cathran, 81 Ga. 367; Moses v. Julian, 45 N.H. 58; Davis v. Allen, 11 Pick. 466; Templeton v. Giddings, 12 S.W. 851. (3) refusal by Judge Gibson to allow plaintiffs a change of venue was reversible error. The cases should have been sent for trial......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT