Court Opinion

ID: 9830098
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:52:12.615037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:12.620522
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The statement in our former opinion that Joe Barnes was named as one of the defendants in plaintiffs’ petition was incorrect, and it is withdrawn.
Through oversight we failed to discuss one of appellants! assignments of error challenging the jurisdiction of this court to determine the merits of the issues presented on this appeal for lack of a necessary party in the person of Joe Barnes, one of the named legatees in the will of Mrs. Mary Lee Puryear. Appellants did not challenge the jurisdiction of the trial court on that ground, but urge the objection in this court for the first time as presenting fundamental error.
Appellants invoke the general rule that in suits for title to real estate all parties adversely interested are necessary parties; and the failure to make them parties is fundamental error, of which this court may. take judicial notice.
This proceeding by the administrator to construe the will of Mrs. C. E. Puryear was in the nature of a proceeding in rem. 26 Tex.Jur. § 566, p. 412. Under the terms of Mrs. Puryear’s will, all her nephews and nieces named as her legatees were to share equally and were members of the same class. The interests of those legatees were not hostile one to another, but all stood on the same footing, and a judgment in favor of the interveners necessarily would have been equally as benfeficial to Joe Barnes though not nominally a party to the proceeding. Likewise, under the doctrine of virtual representation, he would he bound by any judgment rendered against interveners who asserted the rights of the entire class, of which he was a member. 26 Tex.Jur. § 459, p. 229; Seiter v. Marshall, 105 Tex. 205, 147 S.W. 226.
Decisions cited by appellants, such as, Goldsmith v. Mitchell (Tex.Civ.App.) 57 S.W.(2d) 188; Barmore v. Darragh (Tex.Civ.App.) 227 S.W. 522; Sharpe v. Land Owners Oil Ass’n, 127 Tex. 147, 92 S.W.(2d) 435; and Panhandle Const. Co. v. Casey, (Tex.Civ.App.) 66 S.W.(2d) 705, follow the general rule that in suits involving title to property all persons having an interest therein are necessary parties. But those suits were not instituted by a member of a class of claimants for the benefit of all or in the interest of all, alike, and therefore those decisions are not in point here. In fact, it appeared that the claims of the plaintiffs in those cases were adverse to the interests of others who were not made defendants.
The assignment of error now under discussion is without merit.
Appellants’ motion for rehearing is overruled, but without prejudice to their right to file a further motion for rehearing by reason of our conclusions on the assignment of error shown above and not discussed in our original opinion.