Pierce v. Pierce

Court of Appeals of Texas

Pierce v. Pierce

218 S.W. 144, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 52, 1920 WL 45

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 8, 1920

DocketNo. 2168.

StatusPublished

This text of 218 S.W. 144 (Pierce v. Pierce) 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

Pierce v. Pierce, 218 S.W. 144, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 52, 1920 WL 45 (Tex. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

HODGES, J.

This is a companion case to cause No. 2167, Mrs. S. E. Pierce et al. v. Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention et al., just decided by this court, 218 S. W. 140. The material facts are the same in this case as are stated in the opinion rendered in that case, and will be referred to without further recital. This is an appeal from an order made by the district court of Fannin county removing O. C. Pierce from the position of trustee, to which he had been appointed by a previous order of the court acting in compliance with the agreement filed for judgment, and the appointment of J. W. Bell in his stead. The principal contention in this case is that the judgment originally rendered appointing C. O. Pierce receiver, in which the court took cognizance of the subject-matter referred to in the agreement, was void for want of jurisdiction in the court. That question and other collateral matters are fully discussed in cause No. 2167 before referred to. If our conclusions in that case are correct, then the judgment in this case should also be affirmed; and it is accordingly so ordered.

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

HODGES, J.

This is a companion case to cause No. 2167, Mrs. S. E. Pierce et al. v. Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention et al., just decided by this court, 218 S. W. 140. The material facts are the same in this case as are stated in the opinion rendered in that case, and will be referred to without further recital. This is an appeal from an order made by the district court of Fannin county removing O. C. Pierce from the position of trustee, to which he had been appointed by a previous order of the court acting in compliance with the agreement filed for judgment, and the appointment of J. W. Bell in his stead. The principal contention in this case is that the judgment originally rendered appointing C. O. Pierce receiver, in which the court took cognizance of the subject-matter referred to in the agreement, was void for want of jurisdiction in the court. That question and other collateral matters are fully discussed in cause No. 2167 before referred to. If our conclusions in that case are correct, then the judgment in this case should also be affirmed; and it is accordingly so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 S.W. 144, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 52, 1920 WL 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierce-v-pierce-texapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack