Phillips v. Phillips
| Decision Date | 09 April 1920 |
| Docket Number | (No. 6199.) |
| Citation | 223 S.W. 243 |
| Parties | PHILLIPS v. PHILLIPS. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; H. M. Richey, Judge.
Action by L. C. Phillips against Nannie Phillips. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Hanson & Butler, of Tyler, and Johnston & Hughes, of Waco, for appellant.
Zeb McCormick, J. W. Taylor, Jr., and S. J. T. Smith, all of Waco, for appellee.
On the 2d day of December, 1918, Mrs. Nannie Phillips filed a petition in the district court of Smith county, Tex., against her husband, L. C. Phillips, in which petition she sought a judgment of divorce, and for a division of community property. On February 26, 1919, L. C. Smith filed a petition against his wife, Nannie Phillips, in the district court of McLennan county, Tex., wherein he sought to obtain a divorce, and asked for no other relief. Citation was issued in each case, but the one issued from the district court of McLennan county, in the suit last referred to, was served first. On April 12, 1919, Mrs. Phillips, the defendant in the McLennan county suit, filed in that cause a plea in abatement, based upon the fact that prior to the commencement of that suit she had instituted her divorce suit in the district court of Smith county. On April 15, 1919, the case in the district court of McLennan county was regularly reached, tried, and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, dissolving the bonds of matrimony then existing between him and his wife, Nannie Phillips. At that trial the defendant did not appear, either in person or by attorney, and the plea in abatement heretofore referred to was not called to the attention of the court until long after the judgment was rendered, to wit, on the 9th day of May, 1919, upon which date the record shows that it was considered and overruled by the court. The record fails to show that any excuse was made for not presenting the plea in abatement at the time the case was called for trial. The defendant, Mrs. Nannie Phillips, has appealed, and presents but one assignment of error, which charges that the court erred in overruling the plea in abatement.
Notwithstanding the pendency of the suit between the same parties in the district court of Smith county, we hold that the district court of McLennan county had jurisdiction to try the case, and the fact that appellant had filed with the clerk her plea in abatement did not deprive that court of jurisdiction. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Long v. Long
...v. National Bank of Commerce (Tex. Civ. App.) 168 S. W. 48; Camp v. First National Bank (Tex. Civ App.) 195 S. W. 217; Phillips v. Phillips (Tex. Civ. App.) 223 S. W. 243; Ward v. Scarborough (Tex. Civ. App.) 223 S. W. 1107. The following, inferentially but substantially, sustain the common......
-
Fulmore v. Benson
...more recent authorities to the extent that the last suit filed will be abated. C. J. vol. 1, p. 46, and cases cited. Phillips v. Phillips (Tex. Civ. App.) 223 S. W. 243; Ward v. Scarbrough (Tex. Civ. App.) 223 S. W. Appellee filed his suit in Lubbock county first, and thereby obtained juris......
-
Haney v. Temple Trust Co.
...as one of "manifest propriety, if not necessity," and its purpose is stated by the late Chief Justice Key of this court in Phillips v. Phillips, 223 S. W. 243, 244, to be that "of maintaining orderly procedure, and that spirit of comity which should exist between tribunals of equal Differen......
-
Sneed v. Sneed
...the lost pleading. See Stevens v. Lee, 70 Tex. 279, 8 S. W. 40; McCoy v. Trust Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 200 S. W. 1138; Phillips v. Phillips (Tex. Civ. App.) 223 S. W. 243. The last case is on all fours with the case at bar, except that the plea had not been lost. We quote from the opinion writ......