Lutz v. Howard, 2462.
Decision Date | 12 July 1944 |
Docket Number | No. 2462.,2462. |
Citation | 181 S.W.2d 869 |
Parties | LUTZ et al. v. HOWARD et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Orange County; F. P. Adams, Judge.
Certiorari proceedings by C. A. Lutz and others against Grace Howard and others to set aside the probate of a will, wherein a trial was had before the court without a jury and on petitioners' request the court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. From a judgment upholding the probate and denying relief to petitioners, petitioners appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
Homer E. Stephenson and De Witt C. Bennett, both of Orange, for appellants.
E. L. Bruce, of Orange, for appellees.
This cause or certiorari proceeding was instituted by the heirs of the deceased daughter against two other daughters of the deceased parents and seeks to set aside or annul the probate of the father's will on the ground it was not probated until more than four years had elapsed after the father's death. The trial resulted in a judgment upholding the previous probate of the will as muniment of title and denied petitioners any relief. They appeal.
The trial was before the court without a jury and on request of appellants that court made and filed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The application for probate of the will was made by the mother, Mrs. Sarah Henry, and Mrs. Grace Howard and Mrs. Ruth Weaver, the only two surviving daughters of Mrs. Henry and her husband, William Henry, the testator, who died prior to the death of Mrs. Henry.
C. A. Lutz was the husband of Edna Henry Lutz, the deceased daughter, and their only children are C. A. Lutz, Jr., a minor, Bonnie Jean Harr and Eloise McBride, whose respective husbands are Clarence Harr and Cecil McBride. These surviving heirs instituted this proceeding.
The will in question was dated January 18, 1933. The testator, William Henry, died October 4, 1934, and his will was not filed for probate until October 23, 1941. The will was admitted to probate on November 10, 1941.
Mrs. Sarah Henry was the sole devisee in said will and some of the property acquired by her under the terms of the will was sold and deeded by her to Mrs. Ruth Weaver, who is for that reason especially interested in having the will probated as a muniment or link in her title to that property. Her right to such relief is fully and specifically sustained by the trial court, whose findings of fact and conclusions of law clearly cover every issue presented by this appeal and exonerate Mrs. Weaver from any character of default that would bar her right to have the will probated as a muniment of title.
Pertinent portions of these findings and conclusions are as follows:
Since this is a certiorari proceeding the fact issue is restricted to the issue set forth in the application therefor, namely, that proponents for the probate of the will were in default in not having presented it for probate within four years from the death of the testator.
The appellants attack the judgment by three points, namely, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Farr v. Bell
...646, 122 S.W. 587 (San Antonio 1909, writ ref'd); Howley v. Sweeney, 288 S.W. 602 (Tex.Civ.App., El Paso 1926, no writ); Lutz v. Howard, 181 S.W.2d 869 (Tex.Civ.App., Eastland 1944, no writ); Owens v. Felty, 227 S.W.2d 379 (Tex.Civ.App., Eastland 1950, writ ref'd); Fortinberry v. Fortinberr......
-
Pleasant v. Johnson
...genuineness and to give vitality to the prior conveyance of the land by Ed J. Pleasant. The same is true of the holding in Lutz v. Howard, Tex.Civ.App., 181 S.W.2d 869. Of what does the 1960 probate give notice? That Ed J. Pleasant was sole devisee in the will. Since he had already conveyed......
-
Fortinberry v. Fortinberry
...link in his title. St. Mary's Orphan Asylum of Texas v. Masterson, 57 Tex.Civ.App. 646, 122 S.W. 587, 590, W/E Refused; Lutz v. Howard, Tex.Civ.App., 181 S.W.2d 869 (no writ hist.); Hill v. Davis, Tex.Civ.App., 227 S.W.2d 381, W/E Refused. The Lutz and Hill cases, supra, involving closely a......
-
Winkler v. Craven, 3035
...322, er. dis.; Armstrong v. Carter, Tex.Civ.App., 291 S.W. 626; Hodge v. Taylor, Tex.Civ.App., 87 S.W.2d 533, er. dis.; Lutz v. Howard, Tex.Civ.App., 181 S.W.2d 869; Owens v. Felty, Tex.Civ.App., 227 S.W.2d 379, er. Finding no reversible error in the record, all of appellants' points, propo......