Court Opinion

ID: 9828923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:51:27.183906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:54.739670
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The appellant Nina Davis complains of the action of this court in taxing against her the fee of the guardian ad litem appointed by the court below for the purpose of defending the suit in her behalf. She asserts that under the authority of Pryor v Krause (Tex. Civ. App.) 168 S. W, 498, and Rogers v. Rogers (Tex. Com. App.) 240 S. W. 1104, the costs should be taxed against the appellee.
The cases cited present a different state of facts from-that reflected by this record. Article 1942, R. S. 1911, provides that the fee of the guardian ad litem shall be taxed as a part of the costs of the suit, and. article 2035 provides that the successful party shall recover of his adversary all the costs expended or incurred therein, except where it is or may be otherwise provided by law.
• Article 2048 provides that the court may, for good cause to be stated on the record, adjudge the costs otherwise than as provided in the preceding articles of that chapter. '
The decisions in the eases cited by the appellant Nina Davis are referrable to article 2048, although they do not expressly so state.
There is nothing in this record to justify taxing the fee of the guardian ad litem against any of the parties to this suit other than the minor whom she represented as provided by article 2035. Holloway v. McIlhenny, 77 Tex. 657, 14 S. W. 240; Brown v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.) 230 S. W. 1058.
Said appellant suggests that there is nothing in this record to show that she has any estate, but we do not so regard it. She appears to be an heir at law of the testator, and, as such, will inherit a portion of the estate of George B. Martin. We see no occasion to comment further upon the questions presented by this appeal.
Motions for rehearing are overruled. .