From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barras v. Barras

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Beaumont
Dec 19, 1919
217 S.W. 252 (Tex. Civ. App. 1919)

Opinion

No. 517.

December 19, 1919.

Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; E. A. McDowell, Judge.

Action by Elizabeth Barras against Lucian Barras. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

V. J. Wistner and Guy Robertson, both of Port Arthur, for appellant.

Stout Rose, of Port Arthur, and Howth Williams, of Beaumont, for appellee.


This is an appeal from a decree granting a divorce to appellee. The only assignment of error is:

"The court erred in hearing and granting the divorce in this cause before the expiration of 30 days after the filing of plaintiff's first amended original petition."

The statement given under this assignment is:

"Plaintiff's first amended original petition was filed on February 4, 1919, and the cause was heard and tried on the same day."

Appellant cites Hunt v. Hunt, 196 S.W. 967; R.S. 4632.

Appellee's original petition was filed on March 2, 1918. On February 4, 1919, she filed what she designated her "first amended original petition." This, in effect, is nothing more than a first supplemental petition. In this petition she answers appellant's plea to the jurisdiction and the other facts pleaded by him specially. It is true that she restates her cause of action as pleaded in her original petition, but no new ground for divorce is stated. Hunt v. Hunt, supra, is not authority for the proposition advanced by appellant under these facts.

Finding no error in this record, the judgment in this cause is in all things affirmed.


Summaries of

Barras v. Barras

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Beaumont
Dec 19, 1919
217 S.W. 252 (Tex. Civ. App. 1919)
Case details for

Barras v. Barras

Case Details

Full title:BARRAS v. BARRAS

Court:Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Beaumont

Date published: Dec 19, 1919

Citations

217 S.W. 252 (Tex. Civ. App. 1919)

Citing Cases

Van Dyck v. Van Dyck

We overrule this proposition. The record here is more nearly analogous to Hutt v. Hutt, Tex. Civ. App.…