Chumchal v. Moore

Court of Appeals of Texas

Chumchal v. Moore

43 S.W.2d 956

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 11, 1931

DocketNo. 8677

StatusPublished

This text of 43 S.W.2d 956 (Chumchal v. Moore) 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

Chumchal v. Moore, 43 S.W.2d 956 (Tex. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinions

FLY, C. J.

This is a suit on a note for $4,812.50 being the last of a series of notes given as purchase money for 475 acres of land in Gonzales county. It was also sought to foreclose a vendor’s lien on the land. The trial was before the court, without a jury, and resulted in a judgment for $6,799.75 and $679.97 attorney’s fees, against' R.' D. Chumchal, and foreclO[957]*957sure of tlie lien as to him and his wife, Carrie Chumchal.

The wife was not a necessary but a proper party to the suit, and the court prop- • erly overruled the plea of misjoinder.

The general demurrer to the petition was properly overruled. The petition stated a good cause of action.

No attention is paid to the rules as to briefing, and^the propositions are too indefinite to be considered even if they presented any questions of merit, which they do not. The case is a plain one of a debt due and unpaid, which could not be collected except at the hands of the law.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

FLY, C. J.

This is a suit on a note for $4,812.50 being the last of a series of notes given as purchase money for 475 acres of land in Gonzales county. It was also sought to foreclose a vendor’s lien on the land. The trial was before the court, without a jury, and resulted in a judgment for $6,799.75 and $679.97 attorney’s fees, against' R.' D. Chumchal, and foreclO[957]*957sure of tlie lien as to him and his wife, Carrie Chumchal.

The wife was not a necessary but a proper party to the suit, and the court prop- • erly overruled the plea of misjoinder.

The general demurrer to the petition was properly overruled. The petition stated a good cause of action.

No attention is paid to the rules as to briefing, and^the propositions are too indefinite to be considered even if they presented any questions of merit, which they do not. The case is a plain one of a debt due and unpaid, which could not be collected except at the hands of the law.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 S.W.2d 956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chumchal-v-moore-texapp-1931.