Mckenzie v. Frost

2 Citing cases

  1. In re Estate of Wilson

    213 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. App. 2007)   Cited 6 times

    In her fifth and final issue, the executrix contends that when the trial court approved her inventory, appraisement, and list of claims showing the three joint accounts as part of Roy's estate, Sharon was precluded from attempting to establish her ownership in the three accounts through her motion for summary judgment. The executrix cites us to the case of McKenzie v. Frost, 448 S.W.2d 520 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.). We have reviewed that case, which involved a title dispute to land and did not involve a probate proceeding.

  2. State v. Sunray DX Oil Co.

    503 S.W.2d 822 (Tex. Civ. App. 1974)   Cited 5 times

    To allow boundary, title original ownership and vacancy to be tried in separate lawsuits would place an unfair burden upon the defendants. McKamey v. Aiken, 118 S.W.2d 482 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1938, writ dism'd). Article 5421c, V.A.C.S. does not contemplate that the State of Texas can simply hang on to the coat tails of the vacancy claimant. It requires the State to prosecute its case actively on its own, on pain of final judgment being entered against it. McKenzie v. Frost, 448 S.W.2d 520 (Tex.Civ.App. — El Paso 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e). See Rule 97, T.R.C.P.