Court Opinion

ID: 9831840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:24:24.756766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:38.455153
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In the motion for rehearing, our attention is called to the case of Harding v. Turner et al., 267 S. W. 314, by the San Antonio court. The ease was not cited in appellant’s brief. The court, in the ease, holds that the husband, under the statute, is a necessary party, and a failure to dispose of him in the judgment' rendered the judgment not final. In that case it was not disclosed in the pleading whether or not the note sued upon and assigned to the wife became her separate property. In that case it is stated by the court that appellant grounds his claim for the injunctive relief, in part, upon the contention that the interest of ■Conway, the husband, was not disposed of, nor was his interest adjudicated. In that ease the court held that the husband, Conway, being a necessary party, the failure to dispose of him in the judgment rendered the judgment ■ not final.
We have reviewed the cases referred to in that opinion and have concluded that the case, under the facts stated in the opinion, is distinguishable from the ease at bar, and especially so under the holding of the court in the case of Whitmire et ux. v. Powell et al., 117 S. W. 433, in which Judge Talbot, for the Dallas court, on rehearing, said:
“It appears very clearly from the evidence that an undivided one-half interest in said land was acquired by A. F. Whitmire by gift from his father, P. C. Whitmire. Any interest Mrs. Whitmire may have had by reason of being A. F. Whitmire’s wife was effectually disposed of by the judgment entered disposing of his interest, and was not less final because of its failure to dispose of her as a party to the suit by express mention of her name.”
That case was before the Supreme Court; 125 S. W. 889, 103 Tex. 232, in which Judge •Caines said:
“It is assigned as error that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in holding that there was a final judgment in the case. The judgment did not mention Mrs. Whitmire, and is not a decree for her. The subject-matter of the controversy is adjudged to others, and she gets nothing. This is a judgment against her. Besides, it appears *309from the evidence that she has no interest in the suit. Her husband’s interest in the land is clearly his separate estate, and she has no interest in it.”
In the suit at bar, the husband sued jointly with the wife for her separate property. The statute does not provide in whose name the judgment should be obtained. Article 4615, Revised Civil Statutes 1925, provides that all property or moneys received as compensation for personal injuries sustained by the wife shall be her separate property, except certain actual expenses mentioned, and not involved here.
We think, as áaid by the Supreme Court in the Whitmire-Powell Case, supra, that, where the subject-matter of the suit is adjudged to the wife, as here, the judgment is against the husband by necessary implication.
The motion is overruled.