Carter v. Carter
| Decision Date | 25 May 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 10785,10785 |
| Citation | 336 S.W.2d 466 |
| Parties | Camille CARTER, Appellant, v. Jack B. CARTER et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Wm. Andress, Jr., Dallas, for appellant.
Thompson, Knight, Wright & Simmons, Daniel R. Rogers, Dallas, for appellees.
Camille Carter filed suit against her husband, Jack B. Carter, for: divorce; custody of their four minor children; a division of community property; an accounting, and an attorneys' fee. She also prayed for the appointment of an auditor and receiver and for a temporary injunction restraining the husband from coming to her home, threatening her or doing her bodily harm and requiring him to contribute to the support of herself and her children. She alleged that her husband had been and was associated with his five brothers, naming them, in business enterprises and that community funds had been comingled with such businesses to the extent
'* * * that she is unable to determine of what her interests consist, and will be unable to determine unless this Court appoints an auditor and a receiver to take charge of all of the properties of all six brothers, require a full accounting and audit thereof, and a partition of her interest therein and that she has no adequate remedy at law to protect her from such actions of the six brothers.'
A temporary injunction as prayed for was issued. The application for appointment of an auditor and receiver was set down for hearing but we are not advised as to what action, if any, was had thereon.
Jack B. Carter filed an inventory and appraisement of the comunity estate and filed his cross action for divorce. The five Carter brothers answered.
A jury trial was had and consistent with the jury's answers to special issues the trial court entered judgment denying the parties a divorce, awarded custody of the four minor children to the mother, ordered Jack B. Carter to pay $50 per week for their support, awarded the wife judgment for an attorneys' fee for the benefit of her attorney, and adjudged the interest of Camille and Jack B. Carter in the business enterprises of the Carter brothers.
Camille Carter alone has appealed and in her brief says:
'By later action upon grounds subsequent to the trial herein, Camille and Jack Carter have been divorced, and the complaints of the action of the trial court and testimony pertinent to the refusal of the divorce have therefore passed out of the appeal.'
We are not advised as to any other provisions of the above mentioned judgment. Accordingly we do not know whether the court in pronouncing the above decree of divorce decreed and ordered a division of the estate of the parties as is provided for and directed by Art. 4638, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. Also we do not know what provisions, if any, that decree made as to the custody of the minor children and their support. Arts. 4639 and 4639a, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St.
Appellant here complains of the judgment in this cause only insofar as it adjudicates community property rights. She does not complain of the judgment denying a divorce and presents no points on that issue and does not complain of the judgment awarding custody of the minor children and ordering payments to be made for their support. In this condition of the appeal and the statement of appellant above quoted that part of the judgment of the trial court denying the divorce must be treated by us as final.
Appellee...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Letcher v. Letcher, 14605
...v. Sittig, 65 Tex. 497." All of appellant's points of error are overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 1 Carter v. Carter, Tex.Civ.App., 336 S.W.2d 466, no writ; Pelham v. Sanders, Tex.Civ.App., 290 S.W.2d 684, no writ; Christie v . Tipps, Tex.Civ.App., 279 S.W.2d 142, no w......
-
Ex parte Preston
...112 Tex. 404, 248 S.W. 21; Ex parte Scott, 133 Tex. 1, 126 S.W.2d 626; Harkness v. Harkness, Tex.Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 399; Carter v. Carter, Tex.Civ.App., 336 S.W.2d 466; Christie v. Tipps, Tex.Civ.App., 279 S.W.2d 142. It is pertinent to inquire how the court can order and bring about a divi......
-
In re L.T.H.
...based on the general rule that any orders ancillary to a divorce proceeding are void if a divorce is not granted. See Carter v. Carter, 336 S.W.2d 466, 468 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1960, no writ); Pelham v. Sanders, 290 S.W.2d 684, 688 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1956, no writ). Robbins argues the ......
-
Austin v. Austin
...rights depends upon the granting of a divorce. Christie v. Tipps, 279 S.W.2d 142 (Tex.Civ.App., Eastland 1955, no writ); Carter v. Carter, 336 S.W.2d 466 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin 1960, no writ). In the instant case, the parties owned substantial property and the court very carefully announced ......