Knox v. Long
| Decision Date | 26 January 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 6486,6486 |
| Citation | 228 S.W.2d 367 |
| Parties | KNOX et al. v. LONG et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
W. C. Holcombe, Longview, Edwin M. Fulton, Gilmer, W. C. Hancock, Pittsburg, for appellants.
H. M. Harrington, Jr., Longview, Angus G. Wynne, Longview, for appellees.
In Cause No. 20688-B now pending on the trial docket of the District Court of Gregg County, Betty Knox Long, individually and as administratrix of the estate of her father, W. C. Knox, deceased, joined by her husband, and plaintiffs and Harryett H. Knox, the surviving widow of W. C. Knox, and W. Clifford Holcomb, Joe B. Holcomb and Mrs. G. E. Williams, the three children of Harryett H. Knox by a former marriage, are the principal defendants. In above suit it is asserted that the various tracts of oil producing properties and an expensive residence all fully described in the pleadings, and valued therein above one-half million dollars, were all acquired during the marriage of W. C. Knox and Harryett H. Knox. At the time of the death of W. C. Knox, the record title to the various properties stood in the name of his surviving widow and her children by her former marriage. It is alleged in the petition that the title to the various properties were so placed in the defendants in trust for the benefit of the community; that as a result of the alleged various manipulations practiced by defendants, the apparent record title then rested in the defendants. Mrs. Betty Knox Long, the asserted only child and sole heir of W. C. Knox, seeks in above suit to have said properties adjudicated the community estate of her father and his surviving wife, Harryett H. Knox. H. M. Harrington, Jr., Angus G. Wynne and Philip Brin, as attorneys at law, filed and are prosecuting above suit in behalf of plaintiffs.
Some months after above suit had been filed, Harryett H. Knox, W. Clifford Holcomb, Joe B. Holcomb and Mrs. G. E. Williams and her husband filed a motion in above numbered cause for the court to disqualify the law firms of Wynne & Wynne and Harrington & Harrington from their further representations as attorneys for plaintiffs in the suit. A hearing was had and from the extensive evidence then introduced the trial court concluded, as recited in the decree, that neither Angus G. Wynne nor his law firm of Wynne & Wynne, nor H. M. Harrington, Jr., nor his law firm of Harrington & Harrington were in any manner disqualified to represent the plaintiffs in the prosecution of above numbered cause. To this order, movants excepted, gave notice of appeal, and filed a supersedeas bond.
In the two points presented, appellants assert that these lawyers were disqualified as a matter of law to represent plaintiffs here. In view of the dismissal of this appeal for the reasons later herein stated we pretermit a discussion of the motion or its merits other than to mention that the evidence dealt with extensive pleadings and intricate questions involved in former litigation and in which these attorneys had appeared as counsel for appellants.
Appellees, in their motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, assert this order appealed from is not a final judgment within the meaning of Art. 2249, R.C.S. of Texas, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 2249, and is not an interlocutory order from which an appeal may be predicated under Art. 2250, R.C.S. of Texas, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 2250, or under other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Los Angeles Rams Football Co.
...Corporation, 380 Ill. 524, 44 N.E.2d 592, 596 (1942); Middleberg v. Middleberg, 427 Pa. 114, 233 A.2d 889, 890 (1967); Knox v. Long, 228 S.W.2d 367, 368 (Tex.Civ.App.1950). Peat & Co., however, asserts that this determination does not end the matter because the circuit court's order is appe......
-
Knox v. Long
...attorneys was heard and denied from which appellants perfected an appeal. Until the disposition of this appeal, reported in Knox v. Long, Tex.Civ.App., 228 S.W.2d 367, and the return of the mandate in May, 1950, no efforts to take her depositions were made. Service was timely had to take he......
-
Spiller v. Sherrill, 15390
...Stalco, Inc. v. Zero Refrigerated Lines, Inc., 390 S.W.2d 476 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1965, writ ref'd); Knox v. Long, 228 S.W.2d 367(Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1950, writ ref'd).4 While respondent makes some contention that the judgment and order dated February 17, 1972, is not an agreed j......
-
Gleason v. Coman
...appellant's motion. In the absence of statutory authority, this court has no jurisdiction of the appeal. Knox v. Long, 228 S.W.2d 367 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1950, writ ref'd). Appellant's first point of error is Appellant's point of error two raises the issue of whether the refusal to enj......