Wilson v. Wilson, 2370-7701.
| Decision Date | 28 October 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 2370-7701.,2370-7701. |
| Citation | 155 S.W.2d 601 |
| Parties | WILSON et al. v. WILSON et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
On April 22, 1937, in a divorce proceeding in the 68th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, instituted by Mrs. Mozelle Wilson against H. J. Wilson, the custody of their minor child, Mary Anita Wilson, was awarded to Mrs. Amanda Wilson, the paternal grandmother of the minor. Mrs. Amanda Wilson resided in Kaufman County, Texas. The minor child was then about seven years of age.
On October 25, 1938, Mozelle Noble Underhill, who was formerly Mozelle Wilson, joined by her husband, M. D. Underhill, filed the present suit in the 68th Judicial District Court of Dallas County against Mrs. Amanda Wilson and H. J. Wilson, it being alleged that Mrs. Amanda Wilson was then a resident of Kaufman County. The purpose of the suit was to relitigate the question of the custody of the minor child, Mary Anita Wilson, which custody had been awarded to Mrs. Amanda Wilson by the prior decree of April 22, 1937. The plaintiffs in this action alleged changed conditions which made it to the best interest of the child that her custody be awarded to the mother, Mrs. Underhill. The parties will be designated as in the trial court.
In this proceeding Mrs. Amanda Wilson timely filed a statutory plea of privilege to be sued in Kaufman County. The plaintiffs moved to dismiss this plea on the ground that under Article 4639a of Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. the 68th Judicial District Court of Dallas County had the continuing and exclusive jurisdiction of the custody of the child and the suit was properly brought in that court. The motion to dismiss the plea of privilege was sustained, to which action of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Conlee v. Burton
...is controlled by the general provisions of the Venue Statute. See Lakey v. McCarroll, 134 Tex. 191, 134 S.W.2d 1016; Wilson v. Wilson, 137 Tex. 528, 155 S.W.2d 601. However, the new rules prescribe separate and distinct procedure for perfecting appeals from interlocutory judgments, from tha......
-
Rhoades v. Fredwell
...support, which was not a final order, but one over which the court has continuing jurisdiction in the divorce proceeding. Wilson v. Wilson, 137 Tex. 528, 155 S.W.2d 601; Ex parte Roberts, 139 Tex. 644, 165 S.W.2d 83; Lakey v. McCarroll, 134 Tex. 191, 134 S.W.2d 1016; Patterson v. Wilson, Te......
-
Wade v. Shaughnessy
...he had to have the venue of the case changed from Mitchell County. Lakey v. McCarroll, 134 Tex. 191, 134 S.W.2d 1016; Wilson v. Wilson, 137 Tex. 528, 155 S.W.2d 601; Isom v. White, Tex.Civ.App., 202 S.W.2d 486; Hughes v. Hughes, Tex.Civ.App., 211 S.W.2d 785; Quick v. Lindsay, Tex.Civ.App., ......
-
Roberts v. Tippett, 4780
...failure as of little importance. See Wilson v. Underhill, Tex.Civ.App., 131 S.W.2d 19, loc.cit. 22(1-3), Rev. other gr. Wilson v. Wilson, 137 Tex. 528, 155 S.W.2d 601. It is obvious that appellee did not secure an affirmative finding of changed conditions by the trial court. Under Rule 299,......