Becknal v. Becknal
| Decision Date | 14 May 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 10046.) |
| Citation | 296 S.W. 917 |
| Parties | BECKNAL et al. v. BECKNAL et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Hunt County; Grover Sellers, Judge.
Suit for partition by B. P. Becknal and others against George W. Becknal and others, and ancillary injunction proceeding between the same parties. From a decree granting the injunction, defendants appeal. Reversed and rendered.
J. P. Coon, of Terrell, and Wynne & Wynne, of Wills Point, for appellants.
Thompson & McWhirter, of Greenville, for appellees.
Appellees B. P. Becknal et al., plaintiffs below, filed suit in the district court of Hunt county for partition, alleging that they owned jointly with Geo. Becknal, defendant, certain lands located in Hunt and Kaufman counties, and certain moneys on deposit in banks in Kaufman, Hunt, and Lamar counties. G. G. Kerr was made a defendant on the allegation that he owned an undivided interest in one of the tracts of land, but it will not be necessary in the further discussion of the case to mention his presence in the suit.
Ancillary to the suit for partition, plaintiffs made application for, and obtained, an order for the issuance of a temporary injunction hereinafter described.
The original petition and application for injunction, read together, reveal that R. H. Becknal died intestate at Terrell, in Kaufman county, Tex., on March 2, 1926, leaving an estate consisting of the real and personal property sought to be partitioned; that this estate was inherited in equal parts by the plaintiffs and defendant Geo. Becknal, under the statute of descent and distribution, although their relationship to the intestate is not disclosed by the pleadings. We further learn from these pleadings that Geo. Becknal was appointed temporary administrator of the estate of R. H. Becknal by the county court of Kaufman county on September 2, 1926, the day preceding the institution of the partition suit, and that this appointment was made permanent by the court on March 4, 1927, under which said estate is being administered.
The grounds for injunction alleged by appellees, concretely stated, are: (1) That the estate was not indebted, and no necessity existed for an administration; (2) that Geo. Becknal, the administrator, and his wife had converted to their use and benefit funds belonging to the estate; (3) that the bond given by him as administrator is wholly insufficient to protect the estate; (4) it was further alleged that B. P. Becknal, one of the plaintiffs, had for at least ten years resided with his family upon a certain tract of land belonging to the estate located in Hunt county under a rental contract, including the year 1927 (the contract is not otherwise described), and that he (plaintiff) was informed, believed, and alleged the fact to be that the administrator was threatening to dispossess him by a suit or some proceeding at law.
Wherefore plaintiffs prayed that the banks in which the funds of the estate were deposited be restrained from paying out any funds in their possession or under their control belonging to said estate or any funds deposited in the name of either Geo. Becknal, Mrs. Geo. Becknal (his wife), Becknal Bros., or Geo. Becknal, administrator, and from transferring any of said funds from one account to another; that Geo. Becknal and his wife be enjoined from paying out any funds belonging to said estate, or from transferring the same from one account to another; that the said Geo. Becknal be enjoined from selling, incumbering, or in any manner disposing of any or all of the properties of said estate, and that he be enjoined from selling, incumbering, or in any manner disposing of his (personal) interest in any part of said estate, and from filing any action at law, or causing the issuance and service of any process for the purpose of evicting the said B. P. Becknal from the tract of land occupied by him, or from in any manner interfering with his cultivation, use, and occupancy of said land during the pendency of the suit, and, further, from filing and maintaining any suit or action at law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pierce v. Baker
...refused; Rogers v. Tompkins Tex.Civ.App., 87 S.W. 379, 382, writ refused; Mills v. Herndon, 77 Tex. 89, 13 S. W. 854; Becknal v. Becknal, Tex.Civ.App., 296 S.W. 917, 919; Reed v. Harlan, Tex. Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d 236, 240, writ Appellants complain of the action of the court in permitting pl......
-
Morrell v. Hamlett
...of the testator, rightfully exercised the authority specifically conferred upon them by the terms of said article. Becknal v. Becknal (Tex. Civ. App.) 296 S. W. 917, 919, par. 7; Roberts v. Stuart, 80 Tex. 379, 387, 15 S. W. 1108; Laas v. Seidel, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 140, 66 S. W. 871, 872-873......
-
Diaz v. Elkin
...jurisdiction over the person of the administrator; it concerns jurisdiction over the assets of the estate itself.”); see also Becknal v. Becknal, 296 S.W. 917, 919 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1927, no writ) (court in one Texas county lacked jurisdiction to enjoin acts by administrator appointed by......
-
Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 12713
...149 S.W.2d 1031; Messer v. Carnes, Tex.Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d 580; Zamora v. Gonzalez, Tex.Civ.App., 128 S.W.2d 166; Becknal v. Becknal, Tex.Civ.App., 296 S.W. 917; Buchner v. Wait, Tex.Civ.App., 137 S.W. 383. The District Court having no jurisdiction in a partition suit to pass upon the quest......