Ritz v. First Nat. Bank of Pecos
Decision Date | 27 October 1921 |
Docket Number | (No. 1241.) |
Citation | 234 S.W. 425 |
Parties | RITZ et ux. v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF PECOS. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Reeves County; Chas. Gibbs, Judge.
Suit by the First National Bank of Pecos against Max Ritz, wherein a writ of attachment was levied upon land, which defendant's wife, in a cross-action joined by her husband, claimed to be homestead. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Clem Calhoun, Jno. B. Howard, and W. A. Hudson, all of Pecos, for appellants.
Ben Palmer, of Pecos, for appellee.
Appellee on September 3, 1921, brought this suit against Max Ritz to recover upon a promissory note in its favor executed by him.
Upon the filing of the petition the plaintiff applied for a writ of attachment upon the ground that Ritz was a nonresident. The writ was issued and levied upon certain premises in the town of Pecos.
Ritz answered, admitting that the bank was entitled to judgment against him upon the note.
By cross-action Mrs. Ritz, joined by her husband, set up that the property levied upon under the writ was their homestead and had never been abandoned by them, that the writ had been wrongfully and maliciously issued, and sought to recover damages therefor. By supplemental petition the bank set up that Ritz and wife had moved to California and permanently abandoned as a home the premises levied upon.
Upon trial a verdict was returned in favor of the bank, and judgment rendered in its favor upon the note with foreclosure of the attachment lien and that Ritz and wife take nothing by cross-action.
From this judgment the latter appeal, and first assign as error that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment against them upon the homestead issue.
The evidence discloses that Ritz and wife had lived upon the premises with their two children. Ritz was involved financially and became ill. About June, 1920, he left Pecos and went first to Bisbee, Ariz., where he remained for some time with a sister. He then went to California, where he still remained at the date of trial on November 29, 1920. On August 25, 1920, Mrs. Ritz left Pecos and joined her husband in California. While there they have lived with her mother. Prior and at the time of her departure for California negotiations were pending for the sale of their home to a Mr. Merriman, but after her departure the trade fell through. Mrs. Ritz stayed in the home until she left for California. From what has been said it will be observed that the premises in Pecos had been impressed with the homestead character; that, while the Ritzes had removed from the same, a new homestead had not been acquired. The question is thus presented as to the intention of the Ritzes in leaving the same. If they left it with the intention of never returning thereto, or if such intention was formed subsequent to their removal, then the property lost its homestead character and became subject to execution. But, if such was not the intention, the contrary rule applies. Max Ritz did not testify, but Mrs. Ritz did. Her testimony in full is as follows:
Cross-examination of Mrs. Ritz by plaintiff:
Redirect examination of Mrs. Ritz by defendant:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Good v. Good
...Williams, 50 Tex. 269, 273 et seq.; Farmer v. Hale, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 73, 37 S. W. 164, 165 (writ refused); Ritz v. First Nat. Bank of Pecos (Tex. Civ. App.) 234 S. W. 425, 427, 428. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause ...
-
City Nat. Bank of Bryan v. Walker, 1949.
...v. Burge, 49 Tex.Civ.App. 599, 110 S.W. 181, writ of error ref.; Harbison v. Tennison, Tex.Civ.App., 38 S.W. 232; Ritz v. First Nat. Bank, Tex. Civ.App., 234 S.W. 425, 427; McKenzie v. Mayer, Tex.Civ.App., 20 S.W.2d 238, 240; Foreman v. Meroney, 62 Tex. 723; Armstrong v. Neville, Tex.Civ.Ap......
-
McClendon v. Brown
...cases that approve and follow this rule are Scott v. Dyer, 60 Tex. 135; Rollins v. O'Farrel, 77 Tex. 90, 13 S. W. 1021; Ritz v. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 234 S. W. 425; and Farmer v. Hale, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 73, 37 S. W. We are not inclined to agree with appellant that upon the facts of this cas......
-
Stevens v. Wilson
...the court to further instruct the jury. Article 2186, R. S. 1925; Thompson v. Van Natta (Tex. Civ. App.) 277 S. W. 711; Ritz v. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 234 S. W. 425; Green v. Hoppe (Tex. Civ. App.) 175 S. W. 1117; Scarbrough v. Wheeler (Tex. Civ. App.) 172 S. W. 196; Bryning v. Ry. Co. (Tex.......