Case ID: sw2d_122/html/1118-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BOND, Chief Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HOWDESHELL v. STANBERY et al.
    No. 12786.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.
    Dec. 10, 1938.
    John B. Poindexter, Jr., of Dallas, for appellant.
    Sarah Daniels, of Dallas, for appellees.
   BOND, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order dissolving a temporary injunction restraining appellees from . selling, under _execution ’and levy, certain property alleged to belong to appellant, W. J. Howdeshell, to satisfy a judgment entered on October 18, 1935. The injunction was issued on a joint application of W. J. Howdeshell and Eunice L. Howdeshell, and, on dissolution thereof, W. J. Howdeshell alone'appealed; the judgment becoming final, as to Eunice L. Howdeshell.

As the case reaches this court, appellant advances the theory that he had, prior to the levy of the execution, sold and conveyed all his right, title, and interest in the property involved,in the suit to Eunice L. Howdeshell, thus had no' interest therein at the time of the levy, and that Mrs. Howdeshell was vested with absolute and unconditional title thereto. If such be true, of which we express no opinion, evidently, W. J. Howdeshell is not an aggrieved party to this appeal, and, Eunice L. Howdeshell, having rested her case on the judgment rendered, declining to appeal, the question involved . has become moot; therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. Accordingly, it is so ordered.

Appeal dismissed.