Brackenridge v. Roberts
Decision Date | 10 December 1924 |
Docket Number | (No. 3923.) |
Citation | 267 S.W. 244 |
Parties | BRACKENRIDGE et al. v. ROBERTS et al. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
In the matter of the estate of George W. Brackenridge, deceased. Proceedings by M. E. Brackenridge and another to probate decedent's will, opposed by Isabella H. Roberts and another. Order denying probate was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (245 S. W. 786), and proponents bring error. Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Williams & Neethe, of Galveston, and Denman, Franklin & McGown, F. C. Davis, and Marshall Eskridge, all of San Antonio, for plaintiffs in error.
Boyle, Ezell & Grover, and H. P. Drought, all of San Antonio, for defendants in error.
W. A. Keeling, Atty. Gen., for the State.
This case was referred to Section A of the Commission of Appeals. Thereafter its presiding judge, S. H. German, prepared and filed with the court a very exhaustive and far-reaching opinion. Inasmuch as the opinion dealt with very important questions of first impression affecting the law of wills, and also overruled a prior decision of this court, it was deemed advisable to withdraw the case from the Commission and to set it for hearing and opinion by the court.
We adopt Judge German's statement of the case as follows:
The trial court rested the whole decision purely on the fact of the testator's writing and signing an instrument containing an expression of revocation, and whether it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Vosburg v. Smith, 7253
...Ashmore v. Pike, Tex.Civ.App., 108 S.W.2d 276, 277(1); Gray v. Cheatham, Tex.Civ.App., 52 S.W.2d 762, 763(4); Brackenridge v. Roberts, 114 Tex. 418, 267 S.W. 244, 246(3), rehearing denied 270 S.W. 1001; Laird v. Laird's Estate, 127 Mich. 24, 86 N.W. 436; Blaisdell v. Davis, 72 Vt. 295, 48 A......
-
Thompson v. Kay
...22 S. W. 1015, 25 S. W. 13, 24 L. R. A. 183, 40 Am. St. Rep. 853; Arrowood v. Blount, 121 Tex. 52, 41 S.W.(2d) 412; Brackenridge v. Roberts, 114 Tex. 418, 267 S. W. 244, 270 S. W. 1001; City of Wichita Falls v. Williams, 119 Tex. 163, 26 S.W.(2d) 910, 79 A. L. R. We must accept the construc......
-
Morris' Estate, In re
...instrument itself and as not referring to the formalities attending the execution of the prior instrument. See Brackenridge v. Roberts, 114 Tex. 418, 267 S.W. 244 (1924); Sien v. Beitel, 289 S.W. 1057 (Tex.Civ.App.1926); Pullen v. Russ, 209 S.W.2d 630 (Tex.Civ.App.1948); Baptist Foundation ......
-
Krahl v. Lehmann
...was overruled. We regard the comments as improper argument. Ragsdale v. Ragsdale, 142 Tex. 476, 179 S.W.2d 291; Brackenridge v. Roberts, 114 Tex. 418, 267 S.W. 244, 270 S.W. 1001; Wiseman v. Robbins, Tex.Civ.App., 230 S.W.2d 371; Logsdon v. Segler, Tex.Civ.App., 225 S.W.2d 435; Cloudt v. Hu......
-
Table of cases
..., 145 Tex 206, 196 SW2d 497, 508 (1946), §14:42 Boyles v. Gresham , 309 SW2d 50 (Tex 1958), §10:81 Brackenridge v. Roberts , 114 Tex 418, 267 SW 244 (1924), §§10:51, 14:70 Bradley v. Robertson , 832 SW2d 199 (Tex App — Houston [14th Dist] 1992, writ dism’d, mand motion overruled), §3:08 Bra......
-
All Wills
...Sanderson v. Aubrey , 472 SW2d 286, 288 (Tex Civ App — Fort Worth 1971, writ ref’d n.r.e.)”); Brackenridge v. Roberts , 114 Tex. 418, 267 SW 244 (1924); see also Stoll v. Henderson , 285 SW3d 99 (Tex App — Houston [1st Dist] 2009, no pet.) (considering an application to probate a revoked wi......
-
Codicils to Wills
...prior will, that prior will generally remains ineffective even if the later will is later revoked. [ Brackenridge v. Roberts , 114 Tex 418, 267 SW 244 (1924); Matter of Rogers , 895 SW2d 375, 378 (Tex App — Tyler 1994, writ denied) (“The revocation of a will takes effect at the time the sub......