Hagood v. Hagood
Decision Date | 25 March 1916 |
Docket Number | (No. 8318.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Parties | HAGOOD v. HAGOOD et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Tarrant County; Marvin H. Brown, Judge.
Partition suit by R. K. Hagood and others against R. B. Hagood. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Capps, Cantey, Hanger & Short, of Ft. Worth, for appellant. McLean, Scott & McLean, of Ft. Worth, for appellees.
This suit was instituted by R. K. Hagood, Mrs. Elizabeth R. Billington, and Mrs. Emma King, joined by their husbands pro forma, against R. B. Hagood for a partition of the estate of R. L. Hagood, deceased. R. K. Hagood was a brother, and Mrs. Billington and Mrs. King daughters of another brother, of said R. L. Hagood. The defendant, R. B. Hagood, was also a brother of R. L. Hagood, deceased, and it was alleged that the several parties named were the sole surviving heirs of R. L. Hagood, and as such entitled to receive the property for which the suit was brought. It was alleged that the defendant, R. B. Hagood, was in possession of and claiming to own all of such property. The defendant answered, and, among other things, pleaded the last will and testament of R. L. Hagood by virtue of which the defendant claimed the entire estate in controversy. The trial was by the court without a jury upon an agreed state of facts, and resulted generally in favor of the plaintiffs, and the defendant has appealed.
The facts as agreed upon by all parties are:
— one-fourth of which, by the terms of the will of the said J. O. Hagood, became the property of the said R. L. Hagood; and that this one-fourth interest in and to the said 241 acres of land next above described was owned and held by the said R. L. Hagood at the time of his death.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Richardson v. McCloskey
...The intention of a testator cannot be shown by parol evidence but must be determined from the language of the will. Hagood v. Hagood (Tex. Civ. App.) 186 S. W. 220. This testimony comes clearly within the inhibition of the evidence rule which provides that the terms of a written instrument ......
-
Benson v. Greenville Nat. Exchange Bank
...at the time of the gift. '' This statement was quoted with approval in Briggs v. Peebles, 144 Tex. 47, 188 S.W.2d 147. See Hagood v. Hagood, Tex.Civ.App., 186 S.W. 220, writ refused for want of The provision of this will in passing the estate to Mrs. Benson's four sons falls within the purv......
-
Cruse v. Reinhard
...would cause the bequest to that child to lapse, except as that child's share might descend and pass under Art. 8295, R.S.1925. See Hagood v. Hagood, Tex.Civ. App., 186 S.W. 220; Id., Tex.Civ.App., 187 S.W. 228. If the shares of Defendants Ethel and Ada lapsed, then under Art. 8295 (and see ......
-
Najvar v. Vasek
...1961, no writ); Lightfoot v. Poindexter, 199 S.W. 1152, 1160 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1918, writ ref'd); Hagood v. Hagood, 186 S.W. 220, 226 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth 1916, writ ref'd). Here it is undisputed that the testator's brother, Bohumil Vasek, predeceased the testator by at least four ye......