Court Opinion

ID: 9830623
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:19:57.775411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:24.879098
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee earnestly insists that we erred in our original opinion handed down March 24, 1938, reversing: and remanding this cause, and contends that the rights of appellant Mrs. Martin were precluded by the judgment in the bankruptcy court, and, if not, that whatever rights she had in the property in controversy must be litigated in the bankruptcy court. Had this property been nonexempt community property, then, of course, the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court would have attached and the conveyance by the trustee “could be annulled and set aside in no other way than by a direct proceeding brought in that court for that purpose.” Hornsby v.-Hornsby, 127 Tex. 474, 93 S.W.2d 379, 381. But the important question of the homestead character of this property has not been litigated. It is not claimed that Mrs. Martin was ever before the bankruptcy court; and any proceedings in that court, absent her, foreclosing the alleged deed of trust lien, could in nowise affect her constitutional right to her homestead exemption. Taking the allegations in appellants’ petition as true, the bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction of either the person (Mrs. Martin) or the subject matter (the homestead). As said in Horns-by v. Hornsby, supra (page 381) : “The question of homestead was injected into the case by the defendant in error’s petition, but was stricken out upon exception and' left undetermined. If, in fact, the property in suit constituted the homestead of the bankrupt and his wife, then, by the express provision of the statute above quoted [Sec. 70a, Subdivision 5, Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S.C.A. § 110(a) (5)], the title thereto did not vest in the trustee, and the wife is not bound by any adjudication by the court of bankruptcy on the homestead question.”
Appellee admits the force of the statement just quoted, but says it is dictum and not necessary to the decision of that case. Be that as it may, it is certainly persuasive on the question discussed therein, coming, as it does, from the Commission of Appeals under express sanction of the Supreme Court of this state.
Therefore the motion for rehearing is overruled.