Sherman v. Goodson's Heirs
Decision Date | 06 March 1920 |
Docket Number | (No. 2232.) |
Citation | 219 S.W. 839 |
Parties | SHERMAN et al. v. GOODSON'S HEIRS et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Hopkins County; Wm. Pinson, Judge.
Suit by M. J. Mauney and others against all parties claiming under the will of Sue E. Goodson, deceased, consolidated with a will contest suit appealed from the county court. From the judgment rendered, Maud K. Sherman and others appeal. Affirmed.
Thornton & Thornton, J. L. Mothershed, and C. O. James, all of Sulphur Springs, for appellants.
C. E. Sheppard, of Sulphur Springs, Melson & Dial, of El Paso, and B. W. Foster, of Sulphur Springs, for appellees.
This is a contest between collateral relatives of M. A. Goodson and Sue E. Goodson, two aged maiden sisters, who lived and died in Hopkins county. They owned jointly and severally considerable property situated in that county, and for many years lived together and used their property in common. In 1911 they executed the following instrument as their last will:
After the execution of that will they continued to live together, using their property jointly as before. In 1914 the older sister, M. A. Goodson, died without having made any other disposition of her property. On February 13, 1915, the will above referred to was filed for probate by the surviving sister, Sue E. Goodson, and was later admitted to probate in due form. The property of M. A. Goodson at the time of her death was valued at $14,399. After the death of her sister, Sue E. Goodson became the recipient of many acts of kindness and attention from those relatives who had been discriminated against in this will. In April of 1917 she executed another will, in which she expressly revoked all wills previously made by her, and provided for a disposition of her property different from that made in the will executed jointly with her sister. She appointed Mrs. Maud K. Sherman, a niece, as independent executrix without bond. On April 18, 1919, Sue E. Goodson died, and a few days later her last will was filed for probate by Mrs. Maud K. Sherman. In July following a contest of that will was filed by M. J. Mauney, Annie E. English, Wiley Goodson, and Sam Burnett Goodson, beneficiaries under the joint will. The contestants alleged the execution of the joint will and its probate by Sue E. Goodson, and asked that the same be admitted to probate, and prayed that the instrument presented as the last will of Sue E. Goodson be rejected. Judgment was rendered in the county court, refusing the application of Mrs. Maud K. Sherman and admitting to probate as the last will of Sue E. Goodson the joint will executed by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kirk v. Beard, A-7857
...recovery has been allowed under similar facts. Nye v. Bradford, 144 Tex. 618, 193 S.W.2d 165, 169 A.L.R. 1; Sherman et al. v. Goodson's Heirs et al., Tex.Civ.App., 219 S.W. 839, wr. ref.; Pullen v. Russ, Tex.Civ.App., 226 S.W.2d 876, wr. ref. n. r. e.; Hamilton v. Hamilton, 154 Tex. 511, 28......
-
Pool v. Sneed
...have been unable to find a case squarely in point in this, or in any other, jurisdiction, we think the case of Sherman v. Goodson's Heirs, Tex. Civ.App., 219 S.W. 839, 840, 842, is persuasive. It is, at least, authority for the general proposition that the power of the first taker under a w......
-
Kirk v. Beard
...Such is the holding in: Larrabee v. Porter, Tex.Civ.App., 166 S.W. 395, wr. ref. To the same effect is the holding in Sherman v. Goodson's Heirs, Tex.Civ.App., 219 S.W. 839, wr. ref.; Pullen v. Russ, Tex.Civ.App. 226 S.W.2d 876; Nye v. Bradford, 144 Tex. 618, 193 S.W.2d 165, 169 A.L.R. 1; W......
-
Nye v. Bradford
...to prove that it is based on or executed in furtherance of agreement. Moore v. Moore, Tex.Civ.App., 198 S.W. 659; Sherman v. Goodson's Heirs, Tex.Civ.App., 219 S.W. 839, application for writ of error refused; Williams v. Williams, 123 Va. 643, 96 S.E. 749, 751; Plemmons v. Pemberton, 346 Mo......