Whiteman v. Whiteman

Court of Appeals of Texas

Whiteman v. Whiteman

232 S.W. 888, 1921 Tex. App. LEXIS 526

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 19, 1921

DocketNo. 2427.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 232 S.W. 888 (Whiteman v. Whiteman) 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

Whiteman v. Whiteman, 232 S.W. 888, 1921 Tex. App. LEXIS 526 (Tex. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLSON, C. J.

(after stating the facts as above). The judgment was a binding and final one as between the parties to the suit. That it was not binding on persons whom appellant did not make, but whom he. might properly have made, parties because of interest they had in the subject-matter of the suit was not a reason in either law or equity why the court below should have set it aside. Hockwald v. Surety Co., 102 S. W. 181; Robbie v. Upson, 153 S. W. 406; Drinkard v. Jenkins, 207 S. W. 353; Rogers v. Dickson, 176 S. W. 865. The term at which it was rendered having ended, appellant was not entitled to have the judgment set aside in the way he chose to proceed without showing that he had been “deprived,” quoting the language of the court in Hockwald v. Surety Co., supra, “by fraud,, accident, mistake, or other uncontrollable circumstances, of the opportunity of properly presenting his cause upon the trial.” Appellant’s insistence to the contrary is overruled, and the judgment is 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 judgment was a binding and final one as between the parties to the suit. That it was not binding on persons whom appellant did not make, but whom he. might properly have made, parties because of interest they had in the subject-matter of the suit was not a reason in either law or equity why the court below should have set it aside. Hockwald v. Surety Co., 102 S. W. 181; Robbie v. Upson, 153 S. W. 406; Drinkard v. Jenkins, 207 S. W. 353; Rogers v. Dickson, 176 S. W. 865. The term at which it was rendered having ended, appellant was not entitled to have the judgment set aside in the way he chose to proceed without showing that he had been “deprived,” quoting the language of the court in Hockwald v. Surety Co., supra, “by fraud,, accident, mistake, or other uncontrollable circumstances, of the opportunity of properly presenting his cause upon the trial.” Appellant’s insistence to the contrary is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 S.W. 888, 1921 Tex. App. LEXIS 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whiteman-v-whiteman-texapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack