Howdeshell v. Stanbery

Court of Appeals of Texas

Howdeshell v. Stanbery

122 S.W.2d 1118

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 10, 1938

DocketNo. 12786.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 122 S.W.2d 1118 (Howdeshell v. Stanbery) 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

Howdeshell v. Stanbery, 122 S.W.2d 1118 (Tex. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

BOND, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order dissolving a temporary injunction restraining appellees from . selling, under _execution ’and levy, certain property alleged to belong to appellant, W. J. Howdeshell, to satisfy a judgment entered on October 18, 1935. The injunction was issued on a joint application of W. J. Howdeshell and Eunice L. Howdeshell, and, on dissolution thereof, W. J. Howdeshell alone'appealed; the judgment becoming final, as to Eunice L. Howdeshell.

As the case reaches this court, appellant advances the theory that he had, prior to the levy of the execution, sold and conveyed all his right, title, and interest in the property involved,in the suit to Eunice L. Howdeshell, thus had no' interest therein at the time of the levy, and that Mrs. Howdeshell was vested with absolute and unconditional title thereto. If such be true, of which we express no opinion, evidently, W. J. Howdeshell is not an aggrieved party to this appeal, and, Eunice L. Howdeshell, having rested her case on the judgment rendered, declining to appeal, the question involved . has become moot; therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. Accordingly, it is so ordered.

Appeal dismissed.

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

BOND, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order dissolving a temporary injunction restraining appellees from . selling, under _execution ’and levy, certain property alleged to belong to appellant, W. J. Howdeshell, to satisfy a judgment entered on October 18, 1935. The injunction was issued on a joint application of W. J. Howdeshell and Eunice L. Howdeshell, and, on dissolution thereof, W. J. Howdeshell alone'appealed; the judgment becoming final, as to Eunice L. Howdeshell.

As the case reaches this court, appellant advances the theory that he had, prior to the levy of the execution, sold and conveyed all his right, title, and interest in the property involved,in the suit to Eunice L. Howdeshell, thus had no' interest therein at the time of the levy, and that Mrs. Howdeshell was vested with absolute and unconditional title thereto. If such be true, of which we express no opinion, evidently, W. J. Howdeshell is not an aggrieved party to this appeal, and, Eunice L. Howdeshell, having rested her case on the judgment rendered, declining to appeal, the question involved . has become moot; therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. Accordingly, it is so ordered.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 S.W.2d 1118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howdeshell-v-stanbery-texapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack