Kopperl v. Sterling
Decision Date | 05 April 1922 |
Docket Number | (No. 8137.) |
Citation | 241 S.W. 553 |
Parties | KOPPERL et al. v. STERLING. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Galveston County; J. C. Canty, Judge.
Action by Isadore Kopperl against Nana Sterling, Moritz Kopperl, Herman Kopperl, and others, in which the defendants Moritz Kopperl and Herman Kopperl joined in plaintiff's demand. Judgment of dismissal, and plaintiff and defendants Moritz Kopperl and Herman Kopperl appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Lewis Fisher and Norman G. Kittrell, both of Houston, for appellant Isadore Kopperl.
John L. Darrouzet and Roy Johnson, both of Galveston, for appellants Moritz and Herman Kopperl.
Frank S. Anderson, of Galveston, for appellee.
The following statement of the nature and result of this litigation is taken from appellants' brief:
To what has been thus recounted there may be added these facts:
There were in all three petitions filed in the courts below by the plaintiff, the two referred to in this quoted statement, filed respectively January 25, 1918, and March 24, 1920, and an intervening one, termed the first amended original, filed June 3, 1919; in all of them it was averred that the decedent, Herman B. Kopperl, "left surviving him his widow, the defendant Nana Sterling, and the following heirs, and none others, to wit: The plaintiff, Isadore Kopperl, and the defendants Moritz Kopperl and Herman Kopperl" —all the four so named being made parties each time; likewise in all three petitions a copy of the will sought to be annulled was attached to, made a part of the pleading, and the sole ground of assault upon it was the alleged insanity of Herman B. Kopperl at the time it was claimed to have been executed by him. In the two amendments there were additional charges to the effect that the widow, taking advantage of her husband's unsound mind, had brought about the signing of the purported will by the exercise of undue influence, had thereafter been appointed independent executrix by the probate court, had taken an oath as such, and had filed an inventory of the property of the estate which did not reflect its true condition. Thus, while not couched in precisely the same language, the facts relied upon for annulment of the order of probate were in all these petitions the same.
In her original answer in the county court Nana Sterling, after charging that the plaintiff in that proceeding had acquiesced in the distribution of the estate pursuant to the terms of the will involved, further pleaded in reference to that matter in hæc verba as follows:
"All of the special bequests as provided in said will have been paid and satisfied, and the contestant knew at the time that the same were paid, and satisfied that the same was being done under the terms of said will and in accordance therewith, and the executrix, his mother, freely discussed and advised with contestant concerning the probate of said will and the payment and satisfaction of the bequests thereunder, and had the approval and sanction of the contestant to all that was done by her under said will, and contestant is thereby estopped to now contest this will, and to cause the executrix the loss and damage that would be incurred to her great prejudice and wrong, if the probate of said will were now disturbed."
From the trial court's judgment so dismissing the cause, the plaintiff, Isadore Kopperl, joined by his two brothers, perfected his appeal to this court.
The appellants filed in the district court a number of assignments of error, but base their appeal on but one, which is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hallaway v. Thompson
...time as administrator of an estate. More recent Texas decisions have taken the opposite view in similar cases. In Kopperl v. Sterling, Tex.Civ.App., 241 S.W. 553, 555, writ refused, it was held that where a defendant was originally sued in her individual capacity, an amendment naming her in......
-
King v. King
...court's judgment on the ground that he was not named as a party to the suit in his capacity of independent executor. Kopperl v. Sterling, Tex.Civ.App., 241 S.W. 553, writ ref. Pugh v. Turner, 145 Tex. 292, 197 S.W.2d 822, 172 A.L.R. 707. The appellant contends that the finding of the jury t......
-
Johnson v. Donley
... ... Miller, 77 Kan. 92, 93 P. 596; Weichold v. Day, ... 118 Kan. 598, 236 P. 649; Hoffman v. Steffey, 10 ... Kan.App. 574, 61 P. 822; Kopperl et al. v. Sterling, ... [Tex. Civ. App.] 241 S.W. 553; Jackson v. Jackson, ... 84 W.Va. 100, 99 S.E. 259; 37 C. J. 1068; 40 Cyc. 1258; 28 R ... ...
-
Buchanan v. Davis
...of a will, and the period within which an action must be brought does not begin until the removal of disability. Kopperl et al. v. Sterling (Tex. Civ. App.) 241 S. W. 553, in which Judge Graves of the Galveston court fully discusses the articles of the statute applicable here and concludes ......