Court Opinion

ID: 9832796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:12:33.179843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:35.781546
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.-
The appellant renews his contention that he is entitled on this appeal to have the rulings of the trial court on demurrers and exceptions reviewed on his bill of exceptions. In support of that proposition he refers to the case of Ry. Co. v. Webber, 109 Tex. 383, 210 S. W. 677. In that case the Supreme Court, in refusing a writ of error, refers to an assignment complaining of the action of the trial court in overruling a plea of privilege at a term held prior to that at which a final judgment was rendered. It appears that no order was entered at the time the plea was overruled showing the action of the court, and no bill of exception taken at that time. In disposing of that question the court uses this language:
“Attempt was made to preserve a record of the court’s action by means of a bill of exception filed to the succeeding term of the court at which the trial on the merits was had. The ruling wpuld have been reviewable under a proper bill of exception filed to the term at which it was made, but it was clearly not reviewable under a bill of exception filed to a succeeding term.”
That ruling is relied on as in effect overruling the eases cited by us in the original opinion. We do not so construe that case. Rules 53-55 for district and county courts are as follows:
rf‘53. There shall be no bills of exception taken to the judgments of the court, rendered upon those matters, which, at common law, constitute the record proper in the case, as the citation, petition, answer, and their supplements and amendments, and motions for a new trial, or in arrest of judgment, and final judgment.
“54. The charges of the court that are given, and those asked that are refused, when signed by the judge and filed by the clerk, being made thereby a part of the record by statute, should not, in civil causes, be made a part of a bill of exceptions.
“55. The rulings of the court upon applications for continuance and for change of venue,' and other incidental motions, and upon the admission or rejection of evidence, and upon other proceedings in the case not embraced in the two preceding rules, when sought to be complained of as erroneous, must be presented in a bill of exceptions, signed by the judge and filed by the clerk, or otherwise made according to the statute, and they will thereby become a part of the record of the cause, and not otherwise.”
From these it appears that objections to judgments on pleadings, that is, as to their legal sufficiency, shall not be presented on appeal by bills of exceptions. Rulings of that character are judgments which at common law constitute a part of the record proper in the appeal. See Daniel v. Daniel (Tex. Civ. App.) 128 S. W. 469, previously cited. In *667the Daniel Case, which was approved by the Supreme Court, the very question here raised was involved, and was decided adversely to the contention of the appellant. We can see no necessary conflict between that ease and the Webber Case referred to by the appellant.
Appellant also insists that the trial court was without jurisdiction in this case, that the property involved belonged to the estate of a decedent, and, this being a suit to collect a debt against that estate, the probate court had exclusive jurisdiction. The record shows a case in.which a number of persons held liens on the same property. It has been held that, where different parties holding the liens on the same property are known, all of them should be made parties to the suit, when the right, of any one of them is sought to be enforced. Cannon v. McDaniel, 46 Tex. 303; Delespine v. Campbell, 45 Tex. 628. It also appears frjm the record that it was necessary in this litigagation to adjust the equities between the different lienholders. That being true, the district court might rightfully assume jurisdiction of the controversy, even though it involved a claim against the estate of a decedent. Cannon v. McDaniel, supra; George v. Ryan, 94 Tex. 317, 60 S. W. 427; Dauraine v. Ashe, 109 Tex. 69, 191 S. W. 563, 196 S. W. 501. It has also been held, upon principles of equity jurisprudence, that when a plaintiff has other grounds of equitable relief presented in his petition, he may connect therewith a money demand against the estate of a decedent. Munson v. Newson, 9 Tex. 109. It furthermore appears from the record in this case that the plaintiff below -sought a personal judgment against Willis as the maker of one of the notes involved in the suit. Certainly the plaintiff had the right to prosecute that suit against Willis, in the district court. As the case now stands no appeal has been prosecuted, objection made to the judgment rendered in the trial court by the party sued as temporary administrator, or by the widow or children of the deceased. Willis alone raises the question of jurisdiction, and for the first time on appeal. In the trial court he filed pleadings upon which he sought and recovered a judgment foreclosing his own lien.
However, in this motion for a rehearing he calls attention to the fact that a personal judgment was rendered against him on the $2,000 and $400 notes. This probably was due to an oversight on the part of the trial judge in framing the judgment. ' The error is fundamental, since it was not alleged that Willis was personally liable for the debts evidenced by those notes.
The judgment will therefore be reformed to correct that error, and as reformed will be affirmed. In all other respects the motion will be overruled.