McDonnold v. First Nat. Bank of Ladonia

Court of Appeals of Texas

McDonnold v. First Nat. Bank of Ladonia

263 S.W. 939, 1924 Tex. App. LEXIS 1118

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 19, 1924

DocketNo. 2957.

StatusPublished

This text of 263 S.W. 939 (McDonnold v. First Nat. Bank of Ladonia) 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

McDonnold v. First Nat. Bank of Ladonia, 263 S.W. 939, 1924 Tex. App. LEXIS 1118 (Tex. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLSON, C. J.

(after stating the facts as above). The contention presented by the first assignment of error, to wit, .that the court erred when he instructed the jury to find that appellees were entitled to a foreclosure *940 of the lien they claimed on the 50 acres of' land, is predicated on the view that the land was a part of P. T. McDonnoId’s homestead, and that there was testimony which would have supported a finding that the sale thereof to G. E. McDonnold was a pretended one in violation of section 50, art. 16, of the Constitution. The assignment is overruled. We have carefully read the testimony in the statement of facts, and, as we understand it, none of it tends in the least to show that the sale was a pretended one, and not a real one as it purported to he.

The contention that the court erred when he rendered judgment against P. T. McDonnold for the amount of the notes he made to appellees, respectively, is sustained. Appellees alleged in their petition that P. T. McDonnold “was duly adjudged a bankrupt,” and P. T. McDonnold, in his answer to the suit set up, and at the trial proved, that on November 15, 1922, he was discharged by an order of the federal District Court from all debts and claims provable “against his estate, and which existed on .the 1st day of October, 1921.” The discharge was a bar to a personal judgment against P. T. McDonnold in appellees’ favor for any amount (Hackney Co. v. Noe, 146 Ky. 818, 143 S. W. 418; 7 C. J. 395), and it was error for the court to adjudge as he did, notwithstanding he at the same time provided that no execution should issue in appellees’ favor against P. T. McDonnold for the amount of the recovery allowed them.

The judgment will be so reformed as to deny appellees a personal judgment against P. T. McDonnold for any sum, and as so reformed will be affirmed.

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

WILLSON, C. J.

(after stating the facts as above). The contention presented by the first assignment of error, to wit, .that the court erred when he instructed the jury to find that appellees were entitled to a foreclosure *940 of the lien they claimed on the 50 acres of' land, is predicated on the view that the land was a part of P. T. McDonnoId’s homestead, and that there was testimony which would have supported a finding that the sale thereof to G. E. McDonnold was a pretended one in violation of section 50, art. 16, of the Constitution. The assignment is overruled. We have carefully read the testimony in the statement of facts, and, as we understand it, none of it tends in the least to show that the sale was a pretended one, and not a real one as it purported to he.

The contention that the court erred when he rendered judgment against P. T. McDonnold for the amount of the notes he made to appellees, respectively, is sustained. Appellees alleged in their petition that P. T. McDonnold “was duly adjudged a bankrupt,” and P. T. McDonnold, in his answer to the suit set up, and at the trial proved, that on November 15, 1922, he was discharged by an order of the federal District Court from all debts and claims provable “against his estate, and which existed on .the 1st day of October, 1921.” The discharge was a bar to a personal judgment against P. T. McDonnold in appellees’ favor for any amount (Hackney Co. v. Noe, 146 Ky. 818, 143 S. W. 418; 7 C. J. 395), and it was error for the court to adjudge as he did, notwithstanding he at the same time provided that no execution should issue in appellees’ favor against P. T. McDonnold for the amount of the recovery allowed them.

The judgment will be so reformed as to deny appellees a personal judgment against P. T. McDonnold for any sum, and as so reformed will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 S.W. 939, 1924 Tex. App. LEXIS 1118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonnold-v-first-nat-bank-of-ladonia-texapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack