# McHenry v. Bankers' Trust Co.

> Court of Appeals of Texas · June 20, 1918 · 206 S.W. 560

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9830687

## Case

- **Full name:** McHENRY Et Al. v. BANKERS' TRUST CO. Et Al.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** June 20, 1918
- **Citations:** 206 S.W. 560; 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 877
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Lane
- **Cited by:** 16 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9830687

## Opinion text

On 'Motion for Rehearing.
In our original opinion we held that the trial court correctly sustained special demurrers addressed to parts of appellants’ pleading in intervention, and in thereafter sustaining appellees’ general demurrer to said pleas, upon appellants’ refusal to amend the same.
Appellants have filed their motion for rehearing, and therein insist, first, that the trial court and this court, in passing upon the question of whether the demurrers to their petition, ' both special and general, should have been sustained, should have found and considered only such facts as were alleged in the petition demurred to, and that this court erred in finding and considering the contents of certain orders and decrees made and entered by the trial court in this cause, and in finding and considering the allegations of certain pleas of other parties to the suit, and in finding and considering other facts not alleged in their petition, in determining such question; second, that this court in its opinion erroneously failed to-find and consider all the facts alleged by appellants in their pleas in intervention.
[8] We recognize and are governed by the well-established rule stated in the cases, cited by appellants in their motion, to wit, that in passing upon general demurrers to a pleading the court must look to and consider only such matters of fact as are alleged in such pleas; but, after a careful review of the record, we conclude that all the material findings of the court complained of by appellants in their motion are made to appear from, and are supported by, specific allegations of the pleas of appellants which were before the trial court at the time the demurrers were passed upon and sustained, or from a reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom.
It is undoubtedly true that the findings in the opinion do not set out all the allegations of appellants’ pleas, which are very numerous, and which cover more than 40 pages of the transcript. It is also true that we did not consider all of such allegations in passing upon the question of the correctness of the action of the trial court in sustaining the demurrers, as we are of the opinion that many of the allegations were not material in deciding the question as to whether or not the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrers of appellees.
We think, however, that we have fairly set out in our opinion all facts alleged in appellants’ pleas material and reasonably necessary for a proper review of the questions presented by this appeal.
The motion for rehearing is refused.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9830687. Public record. Not legal advice.