Court Opinion

ID: 9834174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:21:50.339534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:12.447794
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
A careful and painstaking .consideration has been given to appellant’s motion for a rehearing, and we still feel constrained to adhere to the views expressed in the original opinion. In the case of Wade v. Wade, 140 Tex. 339, 167 S.W.2d 1008, 1010, which was largely relied upon in the disposition made, we should perhaps have stated that Chief Justice Alexander, writing the opinion for the court, stated: “It should be noted that we are not here dealing with the question as to whether a husband who joins ‘pro forma’ with his wife in a suit to' recover community property, is properly before the court. That question is reserved for future consideration.”
It is thought that the case of Southern Pac. Co. v. Ulmer, Tex.Com.App., 286 S.W. 193, is conclusive that had the suit proceeded to judgment with the husband as a party pro forma same would have been binding upon him.
In our opinion our disposition of this case in no way conflicts with the case of Roberts v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., et al., Tex.Civ.App., 142 S.W.2d 315; Id., 135 Tex. 289, 143 S.W.2d 79. In that case the judgment of the trial court as to Magnolia Petroleum Company was affirmed, not on the grounds that the cause of action asserted against it was barred by limitation, but because no cause of action was proven against it. The husband had set up his cause of action against the alleged agent of the Magnolia. This being the case, the wife having no cause of action, the judg\ ment was properly affirmed. However, it does not appear on just what grounds the court affirmed the judgment in favor of Lanius, the alleged agent of Magnolia Petroleum Company. Absent fraud, the release of the husband for a valuable consideration extinguished his cause of action.
It is ordered that the motion for rehearing be in all things overruled.