Cleveland v. Cleveland
Decision Date | 28 March 1895 |
Citation | 30 S.W. 825 |
Parties | CLEVELAND et al. v. CLEVELAND et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Galveston county; William H. Stewart, Judge.
Action by Lander Cleveland and others, as devisees, against Louise H. Cleveland personally and as executrix, and others, for construction of a will, and for the partition of the estate, and for an accounting. From a judgment rendered, defendants appeal. Reversed.
George Mason, for appellants. Hume & Kleberg, for appellees.
Charles L. Cleveland died testate February 8, 1892, possessed of an estate of the estimated value of $150,000. He left surviving him as his widow and nearest heirs the appellant Louise Hardie Cleveland, wife of a second marriage, and the appellees, Lander, Jesse, Sidney, Oliver, and Willie Cleveland, sons by his first wife, and a granddaughter, Yrma, the daughter of Stuart, a deceased son of his first marriage. His will was duly probated in Galveston county on April 4, 1892, and the executors named qualified, and returned an inventory of his estate. The will is as follows: The suit was brought by the appellees against the executors and against Louise Hardie Cleveland in her individual capacity to construe the will, and to partition the estate among the persons entitled thereto, and for an exhibit of the condition of the estate. The defendant Lockhart simply entered an appearance. Louise H. Cleveland demurred to the petition that it averred no fact or facts to confer jurisdiction of the court to render any judgment except to construe the will. The demurrer was overruled, and the case was submitted to the court, which rendered judgment, upon hearing evidence, construing the will to mean that the executors should pay Louise H. Cleveland $4,000 during the period necessary for the administration of the estate, which period the court found to be two years and six months from the date of the probate of the will, and ordered an exhibit and partition of the estate, appointing commissioners for that purpose. Evidence was heard, which, in addition to the facts already stated, showed that all the property devised by the testator was his separate estate, but that nearly all of it had originally been the community property of the testator and his first wife, except two tracts of land, which were of her separate estate; and she had at her death, in the year 1882, devised all her estate to him. At the time of the trial below the sons of the testator were all of age. T...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cocke v. Naumann, 13631.
...court in the exercise of its larger general law and equity jurisdiction. The language used by the Court of Civil Appeals in Cleveland v. Cleveland, 30 S.W. 825, 827, is typical of many expressions on the subject. The court said: "We do not agree with the appellants in the contention that th......
-
McCanless v. Clough
...of the will. Runnels v. Runnels, 27 Tex. 515; Fortune v. Killebrew, 70 Tex. 437, 7 S. W. 759; Cleveland v. Cleveland (Tex. Civ. App.) 30 S. W. 825, Id., 89 Tex. 445, 35 S. W. 145; Shiner v. Shiner, 90 Tex. 414, 38 S. W. 1126; Taylor v. Williams, 101 Tex. 388, 108 S. W. 815; Yeager v. Bradle......
-
Cleveland v. Cleveland
...partition of his estate. From the decision of the court of civil appeals reversing the judgment of the district court of Galveston county (30 S. W. 825) petitioners bring error. Hume & Kleberg, for plaintiffs in error Lander Cleveland and others. Geo. Mason, for defendants in error Louise H......
-
Upham v. Upham
...the assets of the estate, and it is our opinion that the District Court had the authority to direct them so to do. Cleveland v. Cleveland, Tex.Civ.App., 30 S.W. 825; 14 Tex.Jur. 568 (and cases cited therein). The trial court found that part of the estate was susceptible of being partitioned......