Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-03-26
COURT OF APPEALS.
Disposition Of tho aOlion DOcksl-cases
Rspored a Lenalh


No, III Mary T.. Terry, appellant, vs.;
W. A.. Cutler ct al, appellecs. Appeal
from the district court OF Urayson county
OPINION.
Mary T. Terry as plaintiff brought this
suit against the following named persons
az dcfcudnnts. W. y. Cutler, a. H. sur
ley. John strong. Dave platt. Henry Piatt,
A. Williams aud husband, @ Williams
sam Thompson, Joseph Bleds2e W. ~;
tracy David hhlne, W., M NJ, nesif rs i,, Sn
company. The pianum sought TO recover
a certain tract OF land lying "a drayson
county. She avcrfeu among 0ther tnlnes
that she claimed the land In controversy
through n decd with warranty clause exc
cuted by one a.. Hhine, and that she pni
ior The title thus acquired the sum or
$500; that A Rhine had died leaving the
defendants David Rhine and w. ~ Bag
ley. executors OF hif last Will she prayed
that N she should iaii % secure juueWcht
for the land that she recover the amount
paid by her from the estate OF Rhine OF
from the said executors OF bis Will As 20
these executors the court sustained pea
10 The jurisdiction ana they We're ulsinles
pd from the suit with an order that they
ego hence without day A verdict anu
judgment were had w favor Of the remnln-
Ing defendants. The plaintiff has conse-
uuently appealed TO this court. The plain
no excepted TO the dismissal u the eNecu-
tors and by an assignment OF error SEEKS
here TO have us revise the action Of the
Mo Defendants David Rhine and W. NJ
Bagloy executors are not obligee5 ia TINS
appeal bond We think that they have mn
interest adverse tO the appellant w the
Judgment which she seeks TO have us re-
Wise. They are Interested IN maintaining
the iud rucnt Of the court below unlsturb-
cd Unless an PARTIES to the Judgment Ia
Interest adverse 10 the appellant De mude
puyces ln the appeal bond this court ls
without jurisdiction tn entertain the ap-
poul which of its own motion 1t g. made,
under such circumstances, 100 uuiy 10 us
miss Grecuwurc ya. Smith. % Texas, l99;
Young vs. Russell 90 Texas, Ueli Meade
& 3omnr W.. bartlett, "a Texas 3b5.
The appeal IS accordingly dismissed.
TAllLTON,
Head. Associate justice, disqualified and
not sitting
No. 100. J. II. Henson appellant. vs.. Ida
and sherman phlpps, appellccs. Appeal
ftom the district court Of Jack county.
OPINION.
Qncluding findings Of fact and conclusions
OF lnwJ
Appellee, Ida phlpps, Joined by her nus
band. sherman l'hpps recovered in TINS
action OF trespuss tO Try title from the
appellant J. a. iICnsOn, an undivided inte-
rest OF thlry-thr"c and thrrt.touiih acres
OF land out OF survey Of lOs acres IN
Tits survey Of 1Gs acres was the property
~ one j. a.. Lawrence. rte dici leaving
four minor children the palnth, i!a
death of Lawrence The appellant, j, j
OK those minors. As such guar
dmn he ( obtained an order IRON
Che probate court OF Jack county
for the sale Of an undivided Interest OF
thlrty-thrce ana tlrce-nfthH acres OF the
tract of Land Ia question. In accordance
with this order which WIS granted Tor
the purpose of enabling the guardian to
pay the debts Of the estate an undivided
interest OF thirty three and thrSVhfths was
sold to ono IObe NcMhortpr. Tho sale was
duly confirmed boy the probate court and
deed executed 10y the guardian 10 McNhor-
ter. subsequently McWhurter conveyed the
Interest 80 purchased ny MN 10 the deleh-
dlut and appellant. j. ~ Henson.
We concur with the trial court that by
means OF this conveyance the appellant
incurred AN undivided interest OF thirty
three and three-nfths acres IN the tract
of land IN question. This fact, however
iu no way lIupulrCs the sOundueHs uf the
further cgnciuAous Of the court thnt the
plaintiff. Ida Phipps. was entitled 10 an
undivided Oue-fOurth Interest or thirty
three throc-tifths acres OF tile remainder
mot guilty. De cannot De heard 10 com
plain OF the Judgment of the court decree
Ing n recovery iu favor of the appellee,
Ida, ugainst hin, To the extent of her mter-
est The appellant scoms 20 labor under
the erroneous impression that because ldu
Ildpps Is dccrccd 10 be entitled 90 her
remaining after the probate sale referred
/ To. ne Is thereby deprived OF the Interest
I when ne acquired Ny means OF TINS Nht.
The action of the court IN admitting in
evidence the probate orders referring Ia
| the guurdiauship of the minor children OF
! y. v. Lawrence furnishes 20 appellant nO
ground for complaint since 10 could not
1 possibly harm him.
IL uppeurs that previous 10 the sale by
I the Guardian to McWhorter the nupclops,
/ both OF whom were minors, had agreed
/ with McWhurtDr that they would sell him
| the Interest Of ldh phpps lu the survey
/ IN question ANA that in part consideration
? OF the sale thus contemplated McMhurtcr
] had delivered n horse tp sherman Phpps
thc husband lt further appears that the
/ application made by the guardian ana al
/ ready referred To- was gt the instance of
/ the appeNecs and 20 the end that McWh0r-
/ ter might thereby acquire tide which
| they Themselves could not directly convey
/ what would be the effect, ~ any, of this
| agreement on the rights Of appclloes M
| u controversy with the remaining disri
| huteCa OF the estate does not arise upon
| amy issue hcrc presented, and Is not con
| sldpred by us.
The sale, however. which was ordered 10y
/ tile court aud which was eiected by thC
! guardian FOR the payment Of debts OF thl
! estate OF All the minors was not aud did
not purport 20 be n sale OF the interest ~
/ the appellee. idu Phlpps, or OF any 90,
| uf the distributes Of the estate, III,
view here expressed was entertained nnt
| ndiudged BY the court hollow
The Judgment ~ therefore affirmed.
TAl,LrON,
CHIEF Justice