Earhart v. Earhart, 14009

Decision Date23 May 1962
Docket NumberNo. 14009,14009
Citation358 S.W.2d 878
PartiesPat H. EARHART, Appellant, v. Marjorie Jean EARHART, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Maynard F. Robinson, San Antonio, for appellant.

Albert M. McNeel, Jr., San Antonio, for appellee.

BARROW, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the 150th District Court of Bexar County dismissing appellant's suit for divorce, after a full hearing before the court on appellee's plea in abatement attacking the qualifications of appellant to bring this suit in Bexar County, Texas, under Article 4631, Vernon's Ann.Civ.Stats. Appellant complains of the trial court's action on the single point that under the undisputed evidence he was a bona fide resident of Bexar County, Texas, as required by said statute. There are no findings of fact.

Appellant, a career Air Force officer, filed this suit on January 3, 1962. He admits that he has not physically resided in Texas since he left Bexar County in 1950, to carry out a military assignment. At the time of filing the suit and for several years prior thereto, appellant was stationed in California. Therefore, he cannot claim jurisdiction under the 1957 amendment to Article 4631, supra, relating to persons in military service not previously citizens of Texas, but stationed in military installations in Texas for a period of one year and in the county for a continuous period of six months next preceding the filing of suit.

Appellant was born and reared in California and entered the service in 1943 from that State. This, however, would not preclude him from thereafter becoming a bona fide resident of Texas. Smith v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 311 S.W.2d 947; Robinson v. Robinson, Tex.Civ.App., 235 S.W.2d 228.

The rule is quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in Commercial Credit Corporation v. Smith, 143 Tex. 612, 187 S.W.2d 363, 366:

'A soldier or sailor does not acquire a new domicile merely from being stationed at a particular place in line of duty. His domicile remains the same as that which he had when he entered the service, unless he shows a change by proof of clear and unequivocal intention.'

It was undisputed that appellant had been stationed in Bexar County, off and on, for about five year prior to 1950; that his second wife divorced him in Bexar County, and alleged that he was a resident of Bexar County; he bought four unimproved lots in Bexar County in 1949, and still owns them; he and appellee, whose home was in San Antonio, were married in Bexar County in 1950. Appellant testified to other facts which, if believed, would have supported a finding by the trial court that he was a bona fide inhabitant of Texas. The trial court, however, found...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Schreiner v. Schreiner
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • November 7, 1973
    ...is a clear abuse of discretion. Stacy v. Stacy, 480 S.W.2d 479 (Tex .Civ.App.--Waco 1972, no writ); Meyer v. Meyer, supra; Earhart v. Earhart, 358 S.W.2d 878 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1962, no writ); Vinson v. Vinson, 340 S.W.2d 562 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1960, no It is to be remembered that ......
  • Perusse v. Perusse, 5826
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 27, 1966
    ...but is a fact matter to be determined by the trial court. Bomar v. Bomar (Tex.Civ.App.), 229 S.W.2d 859; Earhart v. Earhart (Tex.Civ.App.), 358 S.W.2d 878. It has also been held that the time of filing the amended petition should be considered as 'the filing of the suit' within the purview ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT