Moore v. Moore

198 S.W. 659, 1917 Tex. App. LEXIS 976
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 31, 1917
DocketNo. 5880.
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 198 S.W. 659 (Moore 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
Moore v. Moore, 198 S.W. 659, 1917 Tex. App. LEXIS 976 (Tex. Ct. App. 1917).

Opinion

SWEARINGEN, J.

This is a suit by appellants, C. W. Moore and Lizzie Moore, against Mrs. Mattie Redd Northrup and her husband, S. G. Northrup, W. Scott Moore, and T. W. Moore to compel contribution towards, payment of a debt of $2,100, alleged to have been the unpaid debt of Martha Moore, from whom appellees are alleged to have received, by inheritance, real property. The trial court sustained a general demurrer to the pleadings of appellants, and rendered judgment against appellants in accordance with the ruling upon the demurrer. The act of the court sustaining the demurrer is assigned as error and presents the one question for our consideration.

It appears from the pleadings that R. A. Wolters, on December 26, 1905, received a note for $2,100, which was signed by Martha Moore, her son, C. W. Moore, and Lizzie Moore, his wife. The note was secured by a deed of trust on certain property, the title to which depends upon the terms of the joint will of Martha Moore and her husband, T. C. Moore. After Wolters brought suit to collect the amount of the note and to foreclose the deed of trust, appellants, C. W. Moore and his wife, Lizzie Moore, paid the entire amount to Wolters and obtained a release of the entire lien. This payment is alleged to have been a forced payment of a debt due by the estate of Martha Moore. It is alleged that appellees, as beneficiaries of their mother’s will, received real estate. Appellants adopted the allegations of the petition filed by Wolters in so far as the same did not contradict their own pleading, and made the joint will of Martha Moore and T. C. Moore, which was a part of appellees’ answer, a part of their own petition. From the various pleadings thus filed and adopted, it was alleged that T. O. Moore and Martha Moore owned, in community, an estate consisting largely of real property; that on September 3, 1895, they executed the following will:

*660 “The State of Texas, County of Fayette.
“Know all men by these presents, that we, Thos. O. Moore and wife, Martha W. Moore, of said county and state, being of sound mind and memory, and desirous of making disposition of such property with which it has pleased God to bless us, do make and declare this to be our last will and testament, hereby revoking any and all other wills by us at any time made.
“First. Whereas, we have had our lands and lots surveyed and numbered and allotted, and a map of the same made, we hereby make and constitute said map a part of this will which is marked ‘Map No. A’ which is hereto attached.
“Second. We hereby appoint and constitute Charles W. Moore (our son) executor of this our last will and testament and it is our desire that no bond be required of him while acting as such. It is also our desire that no action be had in any court in probating this will further than to return an inventory of our estate, and to prove and record this will.
“Third. In the event that said Charles W. Moore be not living at our demise or the demise of either of us, then it is our desire and we hereby direct that the majority of our sons then living shall choose and elect an executor of this our will, and we desire that no bond be required of the one so elected.
“Fourth. It is our desire and we hereby direct that all of our just debts and funeral expenses be paid out of our estate by the executor of this will as soon after our demise as by him shall be deemed practicable and convenient.
“Fifth. For the purpose of locating and describing the lands herein after devised all lands lying south of a line running east and west, beginning at the N. E. corner of Charles W. Moore’s post oak survey of 35 acres, thence east to the S. A. & A. P. Railroad right of way for cornei-, all south of said line to be known and designated as post oak lands, and all north, of said line to be known and designated as river or valley lands.
“Sixth. We bequeath and devise unto our son, Charles W. Moore, tract No. 1 of post oak lands, as per map hereinbefore referred to, said tract containing twenty acres 'of land more or less. Also we bequeath and devise unto our son, Charles W. Moore, tract No. 7 of river or valley land as per said map containing one hundred and six acres of land, said tract lying north of the line described in the 5th paragraph and containing all of our lands lying north of said line and west of the ,S. A. & A. P. Railroad north to the M., K. & T. RaUroad right of way.
“Seventh. We give and devise unto our son Charles W. Moore the lot or block upon which our home and residence is situated said lot or block lying immediately east of the S. A. & A. P. Railroad and the (3) three fractional lots, fronting on Lafayette street adjoining our residence block, which said lots were purchased by Thos. C. Moore from Bing Admiral and by him from F. A. Hess and wife said fractional lots appearing upon the map of West Point according to the plan of record, the residence block being number 3 on the map hereto attached and referred to.
“Eighth. We give and bequeath unto our son, C. W. Moore, the following personal property to wit: One pair of mules, one yoke of oxen and three milk cows, all of which to be selected by him before disposition be made of any personal property. We also give unto our son, O. W. Moore, the gun, pistol and bowie knife we may die possessed of.
“Ninth. We hereby bequeath and devise unto our son, J. H. Moore, post oak tract No. 2 on map of survey hereto attached containing twenty-nine acres of land more or less, also tract No. 9 river or valley land as appearing on said map, containing one hundred and twenty-eight acres of land more or less.
“Tenth. We hereby bequeath and devise unto i W. S. Moore, our grandson, post oak tract No. 5 as appearing on said map hereto attached containing twenty-six acres of land more or less. Also tract No. 10 river land as appearing on said map or survey hereto attached containing eighty-seven acres of land, more or less. Also one house and lot, to wit, lot No. 5 as appearing upon said map said house known as the Jerry Crawford house. Also block No. 6 as appearing on said map, said block being known as the John Crawford place.
“It is provided, however, that in case of the death of our grandson, W. S. Moore, before this will is proven and recorded, then the bequests and devises as made to him to be null and void, and the property so devised unto him to be equally divided between the other legatees as named in this will.
“Eleventh. We bequeath and devise unto our granddaughter, Mrs. Mattie Redd Northrup née McClellan post oak tract No. 6 as appearing on said map or survey hereto attached containing twenty acres of land more or less, also tract No. eleven of river or valley; land, according to said map or survey containing eighty acres of land more or less. Also block No. 4 as per said map, including the house known as the Ike Simms house, excepting out of said block that portion surveyed off east end of said block known as the Webb tract.
“Twelfth. We bequeath and devise unto our son, Dyer Moore, post oak tract No. (3) three as appears on the map or survey hereto attached containing twenty-nine acres of land more or less. Also tract No.

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

Related

Meyer v. Texas National Bank of Commerce of Houston
424 S.W.2d 417 (Texas Supreme Court, 1968)
Russell v. Garrett
392 S.W.2d 375 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1965)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1964
Martinez v. Pearson
373 S.W.2d 76 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1963)
Kirk v. Beard
345 S.W.2d 267 (Texas Supreme Court, 1961)
Kirk v. Beard
334 S.W.2d 531 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1960)
Odell v. Odell
306 S.W.2d 914 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1957)
Leopold v. Sochat
303 S.W.2d 840 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1957)
Weidner v. Crowther
301 S.W.2d 621 (Texas Supreme Court, 1957)
Ellis v. Bruce
286 S.W.2d 645 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1956)
Murphy v. Slaton
273 S.W.2d 588 (Texas Supreme Court, 1954)
Dufner v. Haynen
263 S.W.2d 662 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1953)
Harrell v. Hickman
215 S.W.2d 876 (Texas Supreme Court, 1948)
Graser v. Graser
212 S.W.2d 859 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1948)
Dickerson v. Yarbrough
212 S.W.2d 975 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1948)
Hickman v. Harrell
211 S.W.2d 374 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1948)
Chadwick v. Bristow
208 S.W.2d 888 (Texas Supreme Court, 1948)
Chadwick v. Bristow
204 S.W.2d 65 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1947)
Nye v. Bradford
193 S.W.2d 165 (Texas Supreme Court, 1946)
Nye v. Bradford
189 S.W.2d 889 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
198 S.W. 659, 1917 Tex. App. LEXIS 976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-moore-texapp-1917.