Brooker v. Brooker, 6879.
Decision Date | 02 June 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 6879.,6879. |
Citation | 106 S.W.2d 247 |
Parties | BROOKER et al. v. BROOKER et al. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Slay & Simon and Thorpe Andrews, all of Fort Worth, and Black & Graves and Ocie Speer, all of Austin, for plaintiffs in error.
Thos. B. Greenwood, Dan Moody, and J. B. Robertson, all of Austin, Chester B. Collins, Gillis A. Johnson, Warren Scarborough, and Cantey, Hanger & McMahon, all of Fort Worth, and Baker, Botts, Andrews & Wharton, of Houston, for defendants in error.
This is a probate proceeding. J. N. Brooker, the testator, died on June 9, 1932, in Tarrant county, Tex., leaving a will, which was duly probated without contest in the probate court of Tarrant county on September 16, 1932. After the will had been admitted to probate, and in due time, the present suit was filed by W. T. Brooker et al., defendants in error here, against J. N. Brooker et al., plaintiffs in error here, in the probate court of Tarrant county pursuant to article 3433, R.C.S. of Texas 1925, as an action to annul and suspend the provisions of the above will. On final trial in the county court a judgment was entered for J. N. Brooker et al. refusing to annul any of the provisions of such will. W. T. Brooker et al. appealed to the district court of Tarrant county, Tex., where, on final trial, judgment was again entered sustaining the will in all of its provisions. W. T. Brooker et al. duly appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals at Fort Worth, where, on final hearing, judgment was entered reversing the judgment of the district court and remanding the cause to that court with instructions to enter judgment annulling and suspending the entire will. The case is pending in this court on writ of error granted on application of J. N. Brooker et al.
Before proceeding further, we deem it advisable to quote the will here attacked. It is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boyd v. Frost Nat. Bank
...law that the rules of construction are more liberal to sustain them than they would be if the gifts were to individuals. See Brooker v. Brooker, 130 Tex. 27, 106 S. W.2d 247; Appendix, 4 Wheat, pages 9 and 10, note 1; Ingraham v. Ingraham, 169 Ill. 432, 48 N.E. 561, 49 N.E. 320. As said in ......
-
Harrold v. First Nat. Bank of Fort Worth
...Tex.Com. App., 29 S.W.2d 1060; Messer v. Carnes, Tex.Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d 580; White v. White, Tex.Civ.App., 149 S.W.2d 1031. 5 Brooker v. Brooker, 130 Tex. 27, 106 S. W.2d 247. 6 Maibaum v. Union Trust Co., Tex.Civ. App., 291 S.W. 924; Ragland v. Wagener, 142 Tex. 651, 180 S.W.2d 435. 7 Tay......
-
Forderhause v. Cherokee Water Co.
...that period of time, and which operates to take the property out of commerce and restrict its alienation, is void. Brooker v. Brooker, 130 Tex. 27, 106 S.W.2d 247 (1937); Weber v. Texas Co., 83 F.2d 807 (5th Cir. 1936), cert. denied, 299 U.S. 561, 57 S.Ct. 23, 81 L.Ed. 413 A preferential ri......
-
Estate of Sneed, Matter of
...and Trust Co., 253 Ill. 528, 97 N.E. 1061 (1912); Wagner v. Clauson, 399 Ill. 403, 78 N.E.2d 203, 3 A.L.R.2d 672; Brooker v. Brooker, 130 Tex. 27, 106 S.W.2d 247 (1937); Taylor v. Republic National Bank, 452 S.W.2d 560 ¶5 The language of the will does not express an intention to incorporate......