Hays v. Brandon

245 S.W.2d 381, 1951 Tex. App. LEXIS 1896
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 7, 1951
Docket15302
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 245 S.W.2d 381 (Hays v. Brandon) 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
Hays v. Brandon, 245 S.W.2d 381, 1951 Tex. App. LEXIS 1896 (Tex. Ct. App. 1951).

Opinions

CULVER, Justice.

Judgment was rendered in this case in the district court of Tarrant County awarding the care, custody and control of a minor child to appellee Brandon, with the right of appellants, Gladys Hays et vir., to have the child visit them in the State of California during the summer months.

The trial court denied the application of appellants to suspend the judgment pending appeal. Appellants have filed their motion here, praying that this court permit the judgment to be superseded under the provisions of Rule 364, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

This Rule vests in the trial judge the exercise of discretionary powers in determining whether such a judgment shall be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. Harris v. Tucker, Tex.Civ.App., 241 S.W.2d 304.

The principal reason assigned by appellants was that in conformity with the judgment the child was taken by appellants to their home in California, and should the judgment be reversed by this court the child would have made an unnecessary round trip to Texas. This would certainly occasion inconvenience and expense but in our opinion it is not such “a proper showing” as would justify us in concluding that the trial judge had abused the discretion which he exercised under the rule mentioned. It is to be borne in mind that the judgment of the trial court pro[383]*383vided that the child would be returned to Texas at the father’s expense.

The motion is overruled.

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

Related

Matthews v. Matthews
725 S.W.2d 275 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1986)
Morris v. Morris
654 S.W.2d 789 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1983)
McGee v. Ponthieu
634 S.W.2d 780 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Goodridge v. Goodridge
591 S.W.2d 571 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1979)
Baker v. Baker
588 S.W.2d 677 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1979)
Alexander v. Gunning
572 S.W.2d 34 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Griffin v. Stanley
562 S.W.2d 920 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Strange v. Strange
464 S.W.2d 216 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1970)
Meeks v. Meeks
371 S.W.2d 123 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1963)
Bourland v. Walker
368 S.W.2d 950 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1963)
Suhren v. Suhren
289 S.W.2d 663 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1956)
Hays v. Brandon
245 S.W.2d 381 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
245 S.W.2d 381, 1951 Tex. App. LEXIS 1896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hays-v-brandon-texapp-1951.