McDonald v. Alvis
| Decision Date | 20 July 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. A-5230,A-5230 |
| Parties | T. B. McDONALD et al., Petitioners, v. J. C. ALVIS et ux., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Carney & Mays, Atlanta, Woodrow Edwards, Mt. Vernon, for petitioners.
R. T. Wilkinson and Leonard Passmore, Mt. Vernon, for respondents.
In October of 1951 Alvis and wife brought this suit to cancel a certain mineral deed executed by them to one Kelley on May 14, 1937, alleging fraud. The trial court withdrew the case from the jury and rendered judgment that the plaintiffs take nothing.
On appeal, by Alvis and wife, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded for another trial, holding on its own motion that all necessary parties were not before the court and despite a motion for rehearing joined in by both parties, plaintiff and defendant, requesting the court to consider the case on its merits. 276 S.W.2d 957. In this we think the Court of Civil Appeals was in error.
It appears that negotiations leading up to the execution of the 1937 deed to Kelley were conducted between Alvis and Dove McDonald. In 1940 Kelley conveyed all of his interest by warranty deed to T. B. and Claude McDonald, trustees. On the trial the evidence showed that Dove and Charlie McDonald were beneficiaries of the trust in the deed from Kelley to the trustees. All four of the McDonalds were brothers and owned the property in common. Dove McDonald appeared and testified in the case.
Kelley, a brother-in-law of Dove McDonald, died prior to the institution of this suit. His unknown heirs are not necessary parties, for the reason that Kelley had conveyed all of his interest to the McDonalds and no relief of any kind or character was sought against the estate of Kelley or his unknown heirs. Antwine v. Reed, 145 Tex. 521, 199 S.W.2d 482.
'A 'necessary party' to a suit, according to the general understanding of that term, is one who is so vitally interested in the subject-matter of the litigation that a valid decree cannot be rendered without his presence as a party.' Commonwealth Bank & Trust Co. v. Heid Bros., Inc., 122 Tex. 56, 52 S.W.2d 74, 75; First National Bank v. Pierce, 123 Tex. 186, 69 S.W.2d 756.
Grelling and Moran were not necessary parties. At one time they owned an oil and gas lease covering the property but by its terms this lease had expired prior to the institution of this suit. Both of these parties expressly disclaimed any interest.
The beneficiaries for whom T. B. and Claude McDonald took title as trustees were not necessary parties.
Article 7425b-25, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St., reads in part:
'In the absence of contrary or limiting provisions in the instrument creating the trust, or a subsequent order or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, the trustee of an express trust is authorized: * * *
* * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hedley Feedlot, Inc. v. Weatherly Trust
...trustee's own name when, either by express grant or necessary implication, that power is vested in the trustee. McDonald v. Alvis, 154 Tex. 570, 281 S.W.2d 330, 331 (1955); 1 Roy W. McDonald, Texas Civil Practice § 5.45(a) (1992). In addition, in the absence of a conflict of interest, or of......
-
Amalgamated Transit Union, Local Division 1338 v. Dallas Public Transit Bd.
...with the City in the control of the Plan and Trust. Slay v. Burnett Trust, 143 Tex. 621, 187 S.W.2d 377 (1945); McDonald v. Alvis, 154 Tex. 570, 281 S.W.2d 330 (1955). In their final Point No. 14, appellants complain that the court erred in denying a supersedeas. Following entry of judgment......
-
Petroleum Anchor Equipment, Inc. v. Tyra
...decision directly on the question when the instrument sought to be cancelled is only a link in a chain of title is McDonald v. Alvis, 154 Tex. 570, 281 S.W.2d 330 (1955). In that case Alvis and wife brought suit to cancel a mineral deed executed by them to G. O. Kelley who, during his lifet......
-
Alvis v. McDonald
...parties on original submission, Alvis v. McDonald, Tex.Civ.App., 276 S.W.2d 957, but the Supreme Court reversed our opinion, McDonald v. Alvis, 281 S.W.2d 330, holding that beneficiaries under an unlimited trust were not necessary parties in a suit for cancellation, and in effect holding th......