Court Opinion

ID: 9829526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:24:24.602745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:02.656666
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In a motion for rehearing, appellants for the first time urge that the record fails to disclose that there was personal service of citation upon Clifford, Milford, and Beulah McCarty, alleged .minors, or that a guardian ad litem had been .appointed to represent them in the trial below. It is therefore insisted that the judgment below is fundamentally erroneous, and should be reversed. Counsel in support of the motion cite the cases of Wallis v. Stuart, 92 Tex. 568, 50 S. W. 567; Taylor v. Rowland, 26 Tex. 293, 294; Ashe v. Young, 68 Tex. 123, 3 S. W. 454; House v. Brent, 69 Tex. 27, 7 S. W. 65; Ellis v. Le Bow, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 449, 71 S. W. 576. We think this case is distinguishable from those cited. For the most part those were eases in which it was sought to divest title to lands which, on the face of the record, appeared to be in the minors, and in which it appeared that there was neither guardian nor guardian ad litem appointed. In the state of the record before us we do not feel inclined to indulge the contention that the judgment below is fundamentally erroneous, and, unless so, appellants are in no position at this time to complain.
The record shows that it was as gu’ardian Mrs. Williams made the purchase of the land in question and therefor executed the vendor’s lien notes declared upon in this suit. She was sued as such, and appeared and answered as such guardian. It further appears that counsel presenting the motion filed answers for all defendants, including the guardian and the minors, and that at no time during the trial by exception to the pleadings, objection to the evidence, or otherwise, was Minervia Williams’ capacity to appear and answer for her minor children as guardian questioned. Nor was 'any equity in her or in the minors pleaded, nor any equity now urged. The legal title to the land for which the purchase-money notes were given was in the plaintiff vendors until the payment thereof was duly made. So that the right of the minors, if any, is at best an equity, and in the state of the record seems remote and speculative. Our statute (article 1942) requires the appointment of a guardian ad litem only in cases where such minor has no guardian. Under the circumstances stated,, we think we should assume, in support of the present judgment and in the absence of any assignment of error, that the minors below in fact h'ad and were, represented by a guardian, and, if by any possible state of facts not shown by the record the minors have an equity enforceable by the courts, they should resort to appropriate proceedings to set aside the judgment in *752the court in- which such judgment was rendered. See Wallis v. Stuart, supra.
We conclude that the motion for rehearing should be overruled.
BUCK, J., not sitting.