Parks v. Lubbock
Decision Date | 02 March 1899 |
Citation | 50 S.W. 466 |
Parties | PARKS v. LUBBOCK.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Anderson county; W. H. Gill, Judge.
Action by John B. Lubbock against R. C. Parks, administrator. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Thos. B. Greenwood & Son, for appellant. A. W. Gregg and B. H. Gardner, for appellee.
This action was brought originally against Mary Fields individually and as independent executrix of the will of her deceased husband, Henry Fields, to recover the amount due upon a note and attached interest coupons, executed by them to the Jarvis-Conklin Mortgage Trust Company on the 1st day of November, 1889, and to foreclose a deed of trust of land executed by them to secure the note. Pending the suit, the executrix married R. C. Parks, and afterwards died, when Parks became the administrator of Henry Fields' estate. A claim was duly presented to him for the amount of the note, principal and interest, and not including attorney's fee, but he refused to allow it except for the principal, less a payment. He was made party to the suit as administrator, and it was prosecuted to judgment, from which this appeal is taken. The pleadings raised the questions decided. The note was as follows: Attached to the note are 10 interest coupons for $24.75 each. The note is indorsed on its back in blank, and without date, to by the "Jarvis-Conklin Mortgage Trust Co." No payment had been made upon it except the first coupon. It was given for money loaned to Fields by the payee, the sum actually received by Fields being $693.12. The difference between this sum and the principal named in the note is claimed by appellee to have been consumed in a commission paid to agents for securing the loan, but the view...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shropshire v. Commerce Farm Credit Co.
...opinion of the Supreme Court. Within a year from the date of refusal by the Supreme Court of a writ of error in the Seymour Opera House Case, Parks v. Lubbock, 50 S. W. 466, was determined by the Galveston Court of Civil Appeals, in an opinion by the eminent Justice Williams. The record now......
-
Taylor v. Davidson.
...Tex. 486; Walters v. Prestidge, 30 Tex. 66; Smyth v. Caswell, 65 Tex. 379; Howard v. Johnson, 69 Tex. 655, 7 S. W. 522; Parks v. Lubbock (Tex. Civ. App.) 50 S. W. 466; s. c. 92 Tex. 635, 51 S. W. The judgment, execution and sale were regular in every respect, and were all antecedent in date......
-
Ball v. Parks
...are of the opinion that it is not necessary to file a claim with an independent executrix. Smyth v. Caswell, 65 Tex. 379; Parks v. Lubbock, Tex.Civ.App., 50 S.W. 466; Taylor v. Davidson, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W. 1018; Sloan v. Dahl, Tex.Civ.App., 27 S.W.2d 284; Lessing v. Russek, Tex.Civ.App.......
-
Deane v. Driscoll
...de bonis non without any other action except to substitute the latter as a party. Simpkins, Adm. Est. p. 130; Parks v. Lubbock (Tex. Civ. App.) 50 S. W. 466. In their twelfth proposition appellants contend that there was evidence to show that Driscoll improvidently administered the estate, ......