Shook v. Shook
Decision Date | 24 February 1912 |
Parties | SHOOK v. SHOOK.<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Navarro County; N. B. Daviss, Judge.
Action for divorce by Carrie B. Shook against J. O. Shook. From a judgment modifying the report of commissioners appointed to partition the community property, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
See, also, 145 S. W. 699.
Richard Mays, for appellant. W. W. Ballew, for appellee.
Appellant brought suit against appellee for divorce, for custody of their children, and for division of their property. A judgment was rendered granting the divorce, awarding appellant the custody of the children, adjudicating their property rights, and appointing commissioners. Appellee appealed from that judgment, and the judgment was affirmed. Shook v. Shook, 125 S. W. 638. After the return of the mandate, the commissioners proceeded to partition the property in accordance with the judgment and filed their report. The report of the commissioners was excepted to by J. O. Shook; his exceptions being filed on November 12, 1910. Appellant replied thereto setting up the defenses hereinafter urged, and specially that the original judgment was res adjudicata as to matters set up by appellee, Shook, and that the homestead alleged had been destroyed and the Shook family dissolved, under the terms of said decree, and that the court had power to adjust the equities between the estates of the parties, and to adjudge the costs, attorney's fees, etc., against the property of the respective parties and charge the same with liability therefor. The cause came on for hearing upon the exceptions to the report of the commissioners on December 17, 1910, and the court rendered a decree approving the report, except in so far as it undertook to set aside a sufficiency of the community property to indemnify and reimburse Mrs. Shook for the value of her separate property which had been used to pay off community debts, and in so far as said report undertook to subject J. O. Shook's community interest to the payment of $250, allowed as attorney's fee and declared to be a lien thereon. The court held that J. O. Shook's interest in said community real estate was his homestead, and was not liable for the payment of the above sums of money, but held that J. O. Shook was personally liable to Mrs. Shook therefor; and the court rejected that part of the report. Appellant excepted to the judgment so rendered, and gave notice of appeal therefrom."
The trial court's conclusions of fact are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schulz v. L. E. Whitham & Co.
...& Goodnight v. Sykes, 102 Tex. 451, 119 S. W. 86, 132 Am. St. Rep. 896; Zapp v. Strohmeyer, 75 Tex. 638, 13 S. W. 9; Shook v. Shook (Tex. Civ. App.) 145 S. W. 682. The authorities cited settle the question that although the husband and wife may be divorced, and although the children may hav......
-
Woods v. Alvarado State Bank
...& Goodnight v. Sykes, 102 Tex. 451, 119 S. W. 86, 132 Am. St. Rep. 896; Zapp v. Strohmeyer, 75 Tex. 638, 13 S. W. 9; Shook v. Shook (Tex. Civ. App.) 145 S. W. 682. However, in the course of time plaintiff in error's daughter, after going to her mother in Oklahoma, married there and ceased t......
-
John E. Morrison & Co. v. Murff
...nor deprive him of the homestead right as the head of a family, even though his children lived apart from him. The holding in Shook v. Shook, 145 S. W. 682, in which a writ of error was denied, is of like Under these pronouncements, it is not perceived how the appellee here could properly h......
-
Tanton v. State Nat. Bank of El Paso
...& Goodnight v. Sykes, 102 Tex. 451, 119 S. W. 86, 132 Am. St. Rep. 896; Zapp v. Strohmeyer, 75 Tex. 638, 13 S. W. 9; Shook v. Shook (Tex. Civ. App.) 145 S. W. 682." (Italics Later in the opinion it is expressly recognized that it does not conflict with the Bahn Case. The decision in the Woo......