Maul v. Williams

Texas Commission of Appeals

Maul v. Williams

69 S.W.2d 1107

CourtTexas Commission of Appeals

DecidedMarch 14, 1934

DocketNo. 1748—6214

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 69 S.W.2d 1107 (Maul v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Commission of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maul v. Williams, 69 S.W.2d 1107 (Tex. Super. Ct. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

CRITZ, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment of the district court of Bexar county, Tex., denying application to probate a certain instrument in writing purporting to be the last will and testament of Margaret Voigt, deceased. The case was tried in the district court with C. F. Maul, plaintiff in error here, as proponent of the alleged will, and Margaret E. Williams et al., defendants in error here, as contestants. Maul appealed from the judgment of the district court to the Court of Civil Appeals at San Antonio. When the case was finally heard in that court, it dismissed the cause, holding .that it had no jurisdiction. 46 S.W.(2d) 467. Maul brings error.

As we understand its opinion, the Court of Civil Appeals held that it had no jurisdiction because the record does not affirmatively show that the district court had jurisdiction.

The record shows that this case was finally tried in the district court on April 13, 1931. In this connection we here quote the following clause contained in the district court judgment: “It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that this judgment be recorded in the Minutes of this Court, and a certified copy thereof be transmitted to the Honorable County Court of Bexar County, Texas, from which it was appealed, for its guidance, observance and execution in the manner provided by law. ‘ To which said judgment of the Court, and the verdict of the jury the Proponent C. F. Maul in open court excepted, and gave notice of appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals of the Fourth Supreme Judicial District of Texas at San Antonio.”

The statement of facts shows thát, when the case was tried in the district court, the following, instruments were offered in evidence:

(a) Application to probate the above-mentioned instruments as the last will and testament of Margaret Voigt, deceased. This application shows to have been originally filed in the county court of Bexar county, Tex., on December 28, 1926. This application also contained in the transcript and shows to have been filed in the district court on August 25, 1927.

(b) The notice of the above application duly issued by the county clerk of Bexar county, Tex., on January 3, 1927. This notice shows to have been duly served by the sheriff of Bexar county, both by posting and by publication.

Finally the statement of facts contains the following agreement: “It is agreed between Counsel that the Decree of the Court entered [1108]*1108aftel hearing had thereon in the County Court is on Record and here referred to and considered in evidence on question of Jurisdiction. This record shows that the Probate Court denied-the probate of the alleged will of Margaret Yoigt, deceased, and that proponent gave notice of appeal to the District Court and filed and had approved his bond for appeal.”

The contestants answered in the district eourt, and raised no issue of jurisdiction.

We think the above record shows jurisdiction in the district court.

The Court of Civil Appeals holds in effect that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement. We agree that, where a court is lacking in potential jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit, no action or agreement of the parties can operate to confer jurisdiction. On the other hand, where a court has potential jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit, its right or power to exercise it may be shown by an agreed statement entered into by the parties. In this connection we hold that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in not giving effect to the above-quoted agreement. This ruling makes it necessary for us to pass on, the other law questions presented by this appeal.

It appears from this record that Margaret Yoigt, a resident of Bexar county, Tex., died on December 22, 1926. On December 28, 1926, C. E. Maul, plaintiff in error here, made application to the county court of Bexar county, Tex., to probate certain instruments alleged 'by him to be the last will and testament of Margaret Voigt, deceased. The application for probate as filed in the county court contains the following allegation:

“That the instruments herewith filed are wholly in the hand-writing of decedent and comprise the following, all of which together form the testamentary disposition of her es-late, as therein stated:

“1. Instrument dated December 19, 1926;

“2. Instrument dated December 20, 1926;

“3. Instrument bearing no date but made on or about said date;

“4. Instrument in the form of a blank cheek, signed by decedent, made on or about December 7, 1926, being a check on the Frost National Bank, payable to petitioner, the amount thereof being Wank.”

The four instruments mentioned in the application were duly filed with it in the county court. When the case was tried in the district court, such trial was had on the original application for prohate as filed in the county court. When the case was tried in the district court, the statement of facts shows the following proceeding:

“Proponent introduced in evidence: ‘the papers that have been identified here and referred to by the witnesses — Especially these three papers at this time’: (First):

“(1)

“ ‘San Antonio Dec. 19

“ ‘In case I do not come back from the hospital these are my requests — I wish Mrs. Folk to have the dressing table and chair in her room — Mrs. Murray is to have a dresser and dressing table and some cbairs & buffet if she wants it — Mrs. Gillespie is to also divide bed clothes in 409 — have what furniture she needs, Mr. Maul is to have the furniture in 407 also the marble top table & and any other things of Dad’s in 409 — I desire O. F. Maul & Mrs. Murray to go thru my things together — Mrs. Murray is to have her ring back she gave me Mr. Maul is to have the 2 stone ring & and the solitaire in the hank. Ethel is to have the three stone ring & pendent — I desire Mrs. Murray to destroy all worthless papers — letters etc. I desire all my clothes wraps etc” to he given to Ethel Morris if she wants them — Mr. Maul is

“ ‘2

to have the furniture &c — in 407 — Ethel to have piano. Mr. Maul to have Brunswick— Mrs. Murray to have gold fish & Globes- — I am making a check for Mr. Maul which will enable him to pay all my bills. I am making a check for Mrs. Williams which will pay her what I owe her — Mr. Maul is to have Flossie & take care of her until she dies— Mr. Maul is to have the entire balance in Frost Bank & pay all debts out of same — Also the collections that are to come from Milwaukee for Jan. & from lots & what Lucca pays in. Mrs. M. Voigt.’

“Paper dated separate date: (Second):

“ ‘Dec. 20, 1926.

“ ‘This is to certify to all people that Mr. O. F. Maul is hold and dispose of all my personal belongings, Furniture, etc. as directed by me. Mrs. M. Voigt.’

“(Third) — undated:

“ ‘Mr. Maul will attend to all my business pay my debts & et. Mrs. M. Voigt’

“Proponent then introduced in evidence ‘outside of these three papers: One dated Dec. 19 the other Dec. 20, 1926, and one bearing identification marks by Dr.

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