Buffalo Bayou Ship Channel Co. v. Bruly

• Decision Date: 01 January 1876
• Citation: 45 Tex. 6
• Parties: BUFFALO BAYOU SHIP CHANNEL CO. v. ANGELA BRULY ET AL.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

45 Tex. 6

BUFFALO BAYOU SHIP CHANNEL CO.

v.ANGELA BRULY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1876.

APPEAL from Harris. Tried below before the Hon. James Masterson.

Angela Bruly and her sister Augustine brought suit for partition of a lot in the city of Houston, against appellant, claiming one eighth each of said lot as heirs of their mother. It was also alleged that the lot was community of their father and mother, and that their mother died intestate in 1849, leaving two other children still living.

Defendant demurred, and pleaded a general denial.

The demurrer was overruled, and verdict was returned for plaintiffs, each for one eighth of the lot; judgment was rendered accordingly; defendant appealed.

Baker & Botts, for appellant, cited Paschal v. Acklin, 27 Tex., 192;Burleson v. Burleson, 28 Tex., 383;16 Tex., 409;27 Tex., 454;18 Tex., 648.

W. P. & E. P. Hamblin, for appellees, cited Wilkinson's Heirs v. Wilkinson, 20 Tex., 237;Robinson v. McDonald, 11 Tex., 390;Duncan v. Rawls, 16 Tex., 501.

MOORE, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

There are questions in this case of the utmost magnitude and interest, which affect, it is no exaggeration to say, the security and title of thousands of persons and estates; and, although they have in various phases been the frequent subject of discussion of this court, it cannot be said that they have as yet fully been settled upon a firm and well-considered basis, so as to avoid the necessity of further judicial discussion, if indeed this can be satisfactorily accomplished without legislative interposition. But although these questions, or some of them at least, will have to be determined before the rights of the parties to this suit can be finally adjudicated, as the case has not been presented so as to enable the court to make such a decree as will bind all the parties interested in the subject of litigation, and as the questions to which we refer have not been fully discussed by counsel and not at all by counsel for appellant,--we shall neither undertake to decide or discuss them at present.

Appellees brought suit to establish their title and have set off to them one eighth part each of a lot in the city of Houston, which they claim to have been community property of their father and mother at the death of the latter. It is admitted in the petition and was clearly shown by the evidence that there were two other surviving children of the mother who were entitled to an equal interest in the lot with the plaintiffs, who were not made parties to the suit, and no cause for not doing so was shown.

It is a general rule in equity, subject to but few exceptions, that all persons interested in the subject-matter of the suit must be made parties to it. Ordinarily one must be made a party to a suit, or he will not be bound or concluded by the judgment. A court of equity will not make a...