# Vineyard v. Heard

> Court of Appeals of Texas · April 8, 1914 · 167 S.W. 22

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9833096

## Case

- **Full name:** VINEYARD Et Al. v. HEARD Et Al.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** April 8, 1914
- **Citations:** 167 S.W. 22; 1914 Tex. App. LEXIS 464
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Fly
- **Cited by:** 12 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/9833096

## Opinion text

On Motion for Rehearing.
[13] We. held in our former opinion and reiterate that Brundrett bought the Wells interest in the land, that Samuel C. and Anna W. Vineyard, as guardians of Lillian Vineyard, recovered the interest that Brundrett had in the Lamar Peninsula, and we did not deem it necessary to state that a subsequent judgment against Brundrett in favor of Mrs. Heard for the same land could not affect the judgment obtained by Lillian Vineyard; she not being a party in the Heard-Brundrett Case. The land bought by Brundrett from the Wells estate was his separate property, paid for out of his separate funds, and neither his heirs nor the Wells heirs own any interest in the interest adjudged to Lillian Vineyard. Mrs. Heard claims title to the land through her judgment against Brundrett, and that judgment is ineffective so far as appellants are concerned.
It is true, as stated in our former opinion, that appellants have no claim to the land sold by the Colt heirs to Anna W. Vineyard and by her sold to Herring, but they are entitled to the land recovered in the judgment against. Brundrett, which was 39/144 of the land, and the 27/144 sold to Samuel Harvey Vineyard by his father, the two interests amounting in the aggregate to 11/24, which was the amount of the land sued for by appellants. This court rendered the judgment it intended to render, and it was not rendered “by an inadvertence” as stated by appellees.
The Wells interest in the land was sold to Brundrett and was recovered from him by Lillian Vineyard, and we cannot inquire into the reason or lack of reason in rendering that judgment. It stands a valid and subsisting judgment of the highest court in Texas, and must be given full force and effect. Appellees are claiming under the Brun-drett and Wells title, and that judgment adjudges that interest to be in appellants. As to that interest, as well as the Samuel Harvey Vineyard interest, the court of last resort has spoken, and by the opinions rendered by that court and opinions of the Court of Civil Appeals approved by that court, the land sued for is vested in appellants.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9833096. Public record. Not legal advice.