Hawes v. Foote

Citations

• 64 Tex. 22

Syllabus

<p>1. Construction of a will. — A will, after making specific bequests, contained this language: “I also give to said legatees (meaning appellees) my cart, all my cattle (except oxen), and any horses of mine they may have in possession at the time of my death.” Over two years after making the will the testator died, leaving an estate, part of which consisted in home stock cattle, in the possession of the legatees to whom the above quoted language referred, and an interest, as partner, in other cattle in possession of a partner, and still others purchased to be fattened and sold as a means of profitably consuming his grain crop, for account of the testator and a partner. Held, that construing the will in view of all the facts (which are very fully detailed in the opinion), the word “ cattle ” did not embrace cattle bought to be fattened by the testator.</p> <p>2. Practice — Jurisdiction — Consolidation of suits. — Suit was brought in the probate court, and the probate judge being disqualified, from interest, the case was transferred to the district court. Afterwards the plaintiff brought another suit in the district court against the same defendants. Both involved the construction of a clause in a will under which plaintiffs claimed specific property. Held:</p> <p>(1) That a motion to transfer the suit first brought, back to the probate court, because the disqualification of the judge had ceased, was properly overruled.</p> <p>(2) The district court had full jurisdiction to make, not only any order the county court might have made, but to consolidate the two suits and determine finally the construction of the will.</p> <p>(3) The authority of the district court on a .consolidation of the two suits was not limited to a construction of the will, but extended to the final adjudication of all rights of property claimed by the contestants under the will.</p>