McDonald v. Mercantile Nat. Bank at Dallas
| Decision Date | 24 April 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 13203.,13203. |
| Citation | 162 S.W.2d 991 |
| Parties | McDONALD v. MERCANTILE NAT. BANK AT DALLAS. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; Sarah T. Hughes, Judge.
Proceeding between Ina Ruth McDonald and the Mercantile National Bank at Dallas. From the judgment, Ina Ruth McDonald appeals.
Affirmed.
O'Connor & Douglass and Robert M. Vaughan, all of Dallas, for appellant.
F. W. Bartlett, Jr., and Malone, Lipscomb, White & Seay, all of Dallas, for appellee.
The sole question in this appeal is one of law, whether an order in a divorce suit, directing the father of a minor child to make periodical payments for the benefit of such child is a debt, enforceable by the divorced wife by writ of garnishment. We think the question is definitely settled by our Supreme Court, in Ex parte Davis, 101 Tex. 607, 111 S.W. 394, 17 L.R.A.,N.S., 1140; Cunningham v. Cunningham et al., 120 Tex. 491, 40 S.W.2d 46, 75 A.L.R. 1305; O'Neil v. O'Neil, Tex.Civ.App., 77 S.W.2d 554; Russell v. Russell, Tex.Civ. App., 79 S.W.2d 639; Ex parte Birkhead, 127 Tex. 556, 95 S.W.2d 953, following in the light of the applicable statute (Art. 4639a, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St.), which, in effect, makes the obligation inheritably imposed upon parents to adequately support their children, a mandatory duty of the divorce court, to order the support of such minors and enforce its decree by contempt proceedings. The statute and authorities leave no room for argument. The statute is so enacted to meet an urgent situation, specially designed in the interest and for the benefit of the minor child, or children, and enforceable only by contempt. The order is not final; it may be altered, changed, or suspended by the court entering the order, as the facts, circumstances, and justice may require. The wife has no pecuniary interest in the award; her interest is merely the promptings of a mother's filial obedience to the demands of her offsprings that they have necessary support. The order is not enforceable, other than by the means provided by the statute.
Judgment of the court below is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Catlett v. Catlett, 40887
...judgment, Burger v. Burger, 156 Tex. 584, 298 S.W.2d 119; they cannot be enforced by garnishment or execution, McDonald v. Mercantile National Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 162 S.W.2d 991; Clay v. Siercovich, Tex.Civ.App., 388 S.W.2d 25; they do not create dobts, Freeland v. Freeland, supra; and they......
-
Rhoades v. Fredwell
...1004 (error ref.); Tipton v. Lester, Tex.Civ.App., 178 S.W.2d 580; Rogers v. Mowry, Tex.Civ. App., 183 S.W.2d 737; McDonald v. Mercantile Nat. Bank of Dallas, 162 S.W.2d 991; Arts. 4639 and 4639a, Vernon's Anno. Tex. Civil Since the instant case is a new and independent action against the w......
-
Ex parte Hooks, A--11688
...to enforce a support judgment by execution, Ex parte Birkhead, 127 Tex. 556, 95 S.W.2d 953 (1936), nor by garnishment, McDonald v. Mercantile National Bank, 162 S.W.2d 991 (Tex.Civ.App.1942, no writ). Since the only means for enforcement is by contempt proceedings, and since the Legislature......
-
Alford v. Alford
...S.W.2d 419, 420 (Tex.1966). The support order entered pursuant to statute may not be enforced by a writ of garnishment. McDonald v. Mercantile Nat. Bank, 162 S.W.2d 991 (Tex.Civ.App., Dallas, 1942, no writ). We note that copious quotations from McDonald are to be found in Burger, supra. Und......