Nesbett v. Nesbett
| Decision Date | 22 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. B--718,B--718 |
| Citation | 428 S.W.2d 663 |
| Parties | James Neil NESBETT, Petitioner, v. George H. NESBETT, Jr., Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Lee S. Bane, Dallas, for petitioner.
Billings, Pierce, Gilley & Stanton, Charlie R. Wise, Dallas, for respondent.
We dismiss petitioner's application for writ of error for want of jurisdiction.
George H. Nesbett, Sr. and wife Jean executed a joint will which was offered for probate by Jean on the death of her husband. Jean took as a beneficiary under the will, and later made a new will which was contrary to the joint will of her and her husband. Upon the death of Jean Nesbett, George H. Nesbett, Jr., offered for probate the second will under which George, Jr., was sole beneficiary. James Neil, the Petitioner herein, and a beneficiary under the joint will of Jean and her husband, contested probate of this second will of Jean and offered for probate the joint will of her and her husband as her last will. It is petitioner's contention that the joint will was mutual and contractual in nature and, therefore, was irrevocable. The probate court admitted the second will of Jean to probate and denied the probate of the joint will as the last will of Jean. On appeal to the district court, that court, likewise, admitted the second will to probate and denied the probate of the joint will. Petitioner appealed to the court of civil appeals which affirmed the judgment of the district court. That court based its holding upon its conclusion that the joint will of George H. Nesbett, Sr., and his wife Jean was not mutual and contractual. 422 S.W.2d 746.
Petitioner in his application for writ of error to this Court asserts jurisdiction only under Vernon's Tex.Civ.Stat.Ann., Art. 1728, § 2, and states that the holding of the court of civil appeals is in conflict with Murphy v. Slaton, 154 Tex. 35, 273 S.W.2d 588 (1954); Wilke v. Thomas, 295 S.W.2d 283 (Tex.Civ.App.--1956, writ ref'd).
There was no question as to competency, execution, witnessing and proof of the wills--and since there was no question but that the second will provided for revocation of the joint will, the probate court and the district court had no alternative but to admit the second will to probate rather than the joint will, without regard as to whether the joint will was mutual and contractual. It appears then that the holding by the court of civil appeals, which is attacked by petitioner, was immaterial to its decision affirming the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Novak v. Stevens
...the limited jurisdiction of probate courts which are no longer binding, are: Tips v. Yancey, 431 S.W.2d 763 (Tex.1968); Nesbett v. Nesbett, 428 S.W.2d 663 (Tex.1968); Murphy v. Slaton, 154 Tex. 35, 273 S.W.2d 588, 597 (1954); Langehennig v. Hohmann, 139 Tex. 452, 163 S.W.2d 402 (1942); Hust......
-
Morris v. Texas Elks Crippled Children's Hospital, Inc.
...482 S.W.2d 687 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1972, no writ); Nesbett v. Nesbett, 422 S.W.2d 746 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1967), writ dism'd, 428 S.W.2d 663 (Tex.1968). The most difficult determination, as in this case, is where there is no extraneous proof and there are no express recitations in the w......
-
Lawrence v. Latch
...contention of plaintiffs that the two 1946 wills were based upon an oral contract between John and Margie Edwards. Cf. Nesbett v. Nesbett, 428 S.W.2d 663 (Tex.Sup.1968); Meyer v. Texas National Bank of Commerce of Houston, 424 S.W.2d 417 (Tex.Sup.1968); Kirk v. Beard, 162 Tex. 144, 345 S.W.......
-
Estate of Morris
...239-40 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1951, writ ref'd n. r. e.), and no alternative to admitting the 1968 will to probate, Nesbett v. Nesbett, 428 S.W.2d 663, 664 (Tex.1968), absent some other rational Another reason advanced by Henry M. Morris to defeat the probate of the 1968 will is estoppel......