Court Opinion

ID: 9826979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:01:32.445297+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:20.241738
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The conclusion stated in our opinion on original hearing, that J. M. Blackman was estopped to recover title of the minor in the former suit, was an estoppel in law resulting from his deed with warranty of title to T. M. Blackman, from whom the *443minor inherited the property, and also from his repeated admissions, acts and deeds in his guardianship proceedings, recited in our original opinion. 14 Tex.Jur., pp. 899 to 903, inclusive, and decisions there cited; 19 R.C.L. pp. 676-681; 21 C.J. 1067.
Furthermore, Wylene Blackman’s title was vested through J. M. Blackman’s deed to her father, without the necessity of resort to the principles of equitable estoppel in pais, which are stressed with much earnestness in appellee’s motion for rehearing.
This being a direct attack by bill ■of review on the former judgment, for fraud in its procurement, the rule that in an appeal from a judgment rendered by the trial court without a jury, the presumption will be indulged that the trial judge based his judgment on competent evidence found in the record and sufficient to support the judgment, to the exclusion of improper •evidence admitted, manifestly, has no proper application in this case.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing is overruled.