Uvalde Paving Co. v. Brooks
Decision Date | 16 July 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 12081.,12081. |
Citation | 86 S.W.2d 49 |
Parties | UVALDE PAVING CO. v. BROOKS, County Judge, et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Bartlett, Thornton & Montgomery, of Dallas, for relator.
Ashworth & Ashworth, of Kaufman, for respondents.
This is an original application for mandamus by relator against the respondents and is an echo from the case of Hinton v. Uvalde Paving Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) reported in 77 S.W.(2d) 733, 736. It will be observed that, on its claim being rejected, the Uvalde Paving Company, relator herein, filed suit against Mrs. Eva Hinton (and her present husband) administratrix of the estate of D. H. Mitchell, her late husband, to recover balance due on two paving certificates issued by the city of Terrell, and to establish a statutory lien on the lot of land in Terrell benefited by the improvement. The contest below was as to the legal existence of the indebtedness and the lien, the contention being that, at the time of the improvement and accrual of the alleged lien, the property was the homestead of Mrs. Hinton and her former husband, D. H. Mitchell.
The trial court rendered judgment for the paving company, adjudicating these issues against the contention of Mrs. Hinton, respondent herein. On appeal to this court, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed, and on refusal by the Supreme Court of a writ of error, the mandate of this court issued to the trial court, which in turn certified the judgment for observance in due course of administration to the county court of Kaufman county, in which was pending administration on the estate of D. H. Mitchell, deceased.
On the judgment being certified and filed with the county clerk of Kaufman county, the county judge, Honorable Ben Brooks, entered an order in the probate proceedings, as follows:
As authorized by article 3564, R. S., relator filed an application praying the court to enter an order, directing the administratrix to sell the property for the satisfaction of the established claim. Thereafter respondent, Mrs. Eva Hinton, filed a motion in the probate proceedings, praying the court to set aside its order of May 27th, supra; also filed a contest of relator's application for an order of sale, and both were sustained by the court on substantially the following grounds; that is, that the lot upon which relator claimed the lien was, at the time of the street improvement and the attempted fixing of the lien, the homestead of D. H. Mitchell and family hence was not an asset of his estate; and further, by an order of said probate court, entered July, 1932, the lot was set aside to the surviving wife of deceased (Eva Hinton) as her homestead; that no appeal was taken from said order, and no certiorari was applied for, and as the judgment in favor of relator (appealed from, see Hinton v. Uvalde Paving Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 77 S.W.(2d) 733) was not certified to the probate court within 30 days from its rendition, said court was without power to order a sale of the property in satisfaction of the established claim.
In view of the issues framed by pleadings in Hinton v. Uvalde Paving Co., supra, we think the district court was authorized, not only to establish the claim and fix the amount thereof, but also to establish the lien, and, in determining the latter issue, to adjudicate and settle the question of the homestead, as was done. See Jenkins v. Cain (Tex. Sup.) 12 S. W. 1114; Cunningham v. Taylor, 20 Tex. 126, 128; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hinton v. Uvalde Paving Co.
...and finally determined the paving company's right to subject the property to the satisfaction of its lien. See Uvalde Paving Company v. Brooks, Tex.Civ.App., 86 S.W.2d 49, 51, and authorities there The appellant contends that the probate court entered an order on July 11, 1932, setting asid......
-
Curtis v. Nobles
...(Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1914, no writ). Accord, Salgo v. Hoffman, 521 S.W.2d 922, 925 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1975, no writ); Uvalde Paving Co. v. Brooks, 86 S.W.2d 49, 51 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1935, no Consequently, there properly is before us the question whether the trial court's 4 September 19......
-
Myers v. Myers, 16403
...has the duty to give effect to the judgment by executing proper orders. 4 Tex.Jur.2d Rev. Part 2 Appeal and Error § 985; Uvalde Paving Co. v. Brooks, 86 S.W.2d 49 (Tex.Civ.App.1935, no When an appellate court renders a judgment in a case the district court has no jurisdiction to review, int......