Lauraine v. Ashe
| Decision Date | 27 June 1917 |
| Docket Number | (No. 2794.) |
| Citation | 196 S.W. 501 |
| Parties | LAURAINE v. ASHE et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Williams & Neethe, of Galveston, and Gill, Jones & Tyler and H. N. Atkinson, all of Houston, for respondents. Cooper & Merrill and Jno. G. Tod, all of Houston, for relator.
In denying a mandamus to require the District Judge to vacate the receivership proceeding pending in his court and deliver the property held by the receiver into the custody of the temporary administrator of Mrs. Allen's estate, it was stated in the original opinion (191 S. W. 563) that while the District Court had jurisdiction to establish against the estate the indebtedness set up in the suit there pending, it was, with the administration of the estate pending, without any power to direct the sale of the property.
It is urged in the motion that most of the indebtedness referred to was the joint indebtedness of Mrs. Allen and A. C. Allen, who is still living; that the mortgages upon the property involved were jointly executed by Mrs. Allen and A. C. Allen, most of the property being jointly owned by them; and that it is the right of the mortgagees to have the interests of A. C. Allen and Mrs. Allen sold together instead of separately. It is also suggested that adjustment of the rights of the Allens as between themselves will become necessary in the determination of the District Court controversy.
These and other considerations are advanced as ground for the contention that authority to sell the property is essential to the jurisdiction with which the District Court is already invested and is a necessary part of that jurisdiction. We are accordingly asked to modify the opinion in the case and to hold that the District Court has the power to cause the sale of the property if it should find that to be necessary to the adjudication and enforcement of the rights involved in the cause.
Whether the District Court has authority to sell the property was not a necessary part of the question before us in the mandamus proceeding. The only question there presented for decision was as to the right of the relator to have the District Judge vacate the receivership and order the delivery of the property into his hands. What was said in the opinion in respect to the authority of the District Court to direct the sale was for the purpose of calling attention to the general rule, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Womack v. Berry
...control the action of an inferior court or public officer in a matter involving discretion. Lauraine v. Ashe, 109 Tex. 69, 191 S.W. 563, 196 S.W. 501; McDowell v. Hightower, 111 Tex. 585, 242 S.W. 753; Anchor v. Martin, 116 Tex. 409, 292 S.W. 877; Morton's Estate v. Chapman, 124 Tex. 42, 75......
-
Griggs v. Brewster
...and may grant the necessary relief. Gregory v. Ward, 118 Tex. 526, 18 S.W.(2d) 1049; Lauraine v. Ashe, 109 Tex. 69, 191 S. W. 563, 196 S. W. 501. The district court, having properly assumed jurisdiction to construe the will of Mrs. Potts and adjudicate the issues raised by the pleadings and......
-
Conrad v. Judson
...for payment in the course of the administration. Boone v. Roberts, 1 Tex. 147 (1846); Lauraine v. Ashe, 109 Tex. 69, 191 S.W. 563, 196 S.W. 501 (1917); Converse & Co. v. Sorley, 39 Tex. 515 (1873); Farmers; & Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Jones, 254 S.W. 251, 254 (Tex.Civ .App., Texarkana 1923, n......
-
Federal Land Bank of Houston v. Tarter
...a sale of the property is necessary, it must be made through that court. Lauraine v. Ashe, supra, 109 Tex. pages 69, 76, 191 S. W. 563, 196 S. W. 501; Farmers' & Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.) 254 S. W. 251; Meyers v. Evans, 68 Tex. 466, 5 S. W. 66; Rev. St. 1925, arts. 2222......