Bayer v. Bayer

Court of Appeals of Texas

Bayer v. Bayer

331 S.W.2d 226, 1960 Tex. App. LEXIS 1929

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 8, 1960

DocketNo. 3491

StatusPublished

This text of 331 S.W.2d 226 (Bayer v. Bayer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bayer v. Bayer, 331 S.W.2d 226, 1960 Tex. App. LEXIS 1929 (Tex. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

WALTER, Justice.

Herman C. Bayer filed suit against Ruth Fay Bayer for a divorce and, in a non-jury trial, a divorce was granted and the defendant has appealed, contending the court erred because the pleadings and proof failed to show a statutory ground for a divorce. She also contends the court erred in making a division of the property.

After carefully reviewing and considering the record and the briefs of the parties, and in deference to Rule 452, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, we have concluded that appellant has not shown the learned and patient trial court abused his discretion in making a division of the community and separate property of the parties. We also hold appellee’s pleadings were sufficient and that there was evidence of probative force to support the judgment rendered. See Scannell v. Scannell, Tex.Civ.App., 117 S.W.2d 538; Hedtke v. Hedtke, 112 Tex. 404, 248 S.W. 21; Article 4638, Revised Civil Statutes. We find no merit in appellant’s points and same are overruled.

Judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WALTER, Justice.

Herman C. Bayer filed suit against Ruth Fay Bayer for a divorce and, in a non-jury trial, a divorce was granted and the defendant has appealed, contending the court erred because the pleadings and proof failed to show a statutory ground for a divorce. She also contends the court erred in making a division of the property.

After carefully reviewing and considering the record and the briefs of the parties, and in deference to Rule 452, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, we have concluded that appellant has not shown the learned and patient trial court abused his discretion in making a division of the community and separate property of the parties. We also hold appellee’s pleadings were sufficient and that there was evidence of probative force to support the judgment rendered. See Scannell v. Scannell, Tex.Civ.App., 117 S.W.2d 538; Hedtke v. Hedtke, 112 Tex. 404, 248 S.W. 21; Article 4638, Revised Civil Statutes. We find no merit in appellant’s points and same are overruled.

Judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

331 S.W.2d 226, 1960 Tex. App. LEXIS 1929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bayer-v-bayer-texapp-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack