Case Name: ALLEN et al. v. BERKMIER et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-10-08
Citations: 216 S.W. 647
Docket Number: No. 1564
Parties: ALLEN et al. v. BERKMIER et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 216
Pages: 647–650

Head Matter:
ALLEN et al. v. BERKMIER et al.
(No. 1564.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.
Oct. 8, 1919.
On the Merits, Oct. 29, 1919.
On Motion for Rehearing, Dec. 3, 1919.)
1. Appeal and error <S=»655(2) — Striking DILL OP EXCEPTIONS FROM THE RECORD.
Bills of exceptions filed more than 30 days after adjournment of term at which case was tried, where no order extending time for filing has been made, will be stricken from the record upon appellee’s motion made within 30 days after filing of transcript in court of appeals, in view of Kev. St. art. 2073.
On the Merits.
2. Execútobs and administbatobs <©=»377— Estoppel to deny validity of administrator's sale.
Heirs who, being of age, agreed among themselves and with the administrator that, in order to secure a final settlement and distribution of estate, land should be sold to certain of the heirs at specified price, and who participated in the distribution of the proceeds of such sale, are estopped from denying validity of sale, since, having assumed that administrator had the right to make sale, they are estopped from denying existence of such fact.
3. Estoppel <§=>78(2) — Denial of existence OF ASSUMED FACTS IN CONTBACT.
When a contract is made, and the parties thereto as a basis therefor assume a certain state of facts to be true, they are thereafter estopped from denying the existence of such facts so made the basis of the contract.
On Motion for Behearing.
4. Courts ®=»92 — Law of the Case.
The law of the case controlling the decision becomes authority, and is not obiter dicta, though the court was mistaken in the assumption of the premise of the decision upon which the law was announced.
Appeal from District Court, Floyd County; B. C. Joiner, Judge.
■Suit by James B. Allen and others against Josephine Berkmier and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Motion to strike out bills of exception sustained.
Judgment affirmed.
Williams & Martin, of Plainview, for appellants.
P. B. Bandolph, of Plainview, for appel-lees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Strike out Bills of Exception.
BOYCE, J.
It appears from the transcript that the term of the district court at which this case was tried adjourned 'on April 4, 1919. No order extending the time for filing bills of exception appears. Bill of exception No. 1 was filed on June 1, 1919, and bills Nos. 2 to 7 inclusive were filed on June 30, 1919. Appellee within 30 days after the filing of the transcript in this court has moved that said bills of exception be stricken from the record because not filed within the time prescribed by law. Under this state of facts the motion must be sustained. B. S. art. 2073; Criswell v. Bobbins, 152 S. W. 210; Pearce v. Supreme Lodge, 190 S. W. 1156; Loeb v. Railway, 186 S. W. 379; Comm. v. Houston Oil Co., 171 S. W. 520; Rishworth v. Moss, 191 S. W. 850; Byrne v. Lumber Co., 198 S. W. 600; Camp v. Gourley, 201 S. W. 671; Pool v. Pierce-Fordyce Oil Ass'n, 209 S. W. 706.
©=>For other cases see same topic am} KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes