Court Opinion

ID: 9944033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 16:02:06.069313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:55:07.846185
License: Public Domain

While I do not agree that the 1950 judgment is res judicata, I agree that Inez had the right to use the royalties and bonuses to pay all expenses necessary to the operation of the ranch. See Guest v. Bizzell,271 S.W.2d 472, 476 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1954, writ ref'd).
I would not apply our prior opinion Hudspeth v. Hudspeth as the law of the case because, in view of the holding in Guest, it is clearly wrong, and finds no support in Clyde v. Hamilton, 414 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. 1967), which did not undertake to define "income."