Henson v. Estate of Crow

Tex.

Court: Supreme Court of Texas

Citations: 30 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 500, 734 S.W.2d 648, 1987 Tex. LEXIS 355

Decision Date: 6/17/1987

Docket Number: No. C-6269

Jurisdiction: TX

Bluebook Citation: Henson v. Estate of Crow, 30 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 500, 734 S.W.2d 648, 1987 Tex. LEXIS 355 (Tex. 1987)

More Cases: Tex. decisions from 1987


Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Highly CitedTop 5% most-cited · cited by 50 decisions
50
Citing decisions
1
Authorities cited
6+
Courts citing

Citations by decade

13
19
13
5
1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

Tex. App.38
Tex.5
5th Cir.2
Colo.1
E.D. Tex.1
T.C.1
Most recently cited by10
  • 2026Blayne Williams, Sr. v. Norman Bennett Tex. App.-Austin
  • 2025Johnny Partain v. State of Texas Tex. App.
  • 2024In Re: Z Resorts Management, LLC and Givens-Records Development, LLC v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
  • 2021Kristen Sullivan D/B/A Celia's Closet v. Joe Mathews Pound and the Estate of Celia H. Pound Tex. App.
  • 2021Rodney Hodge as Administrator of the Estate of Bessie Jeanne Worthy, Rodney Hodge as Trustee of the Bessie Jeanne Worthy Revocable Living Trust, Rodney Hodge, Individually, and Cheri Tye v. Joyce W. Lindauer Attorney, PLLC, and Joyce Lindauer Tex. App.
  • 2019in Re Victoria Coats, Independent of the Estate of Hobart Rutherford Key Tex. App.
  • 2018Marco A. Delgado v. Juan Lino Garza Sr. Tex. App.
  • 2017Hegwer v. Edwards Tex. App.
  • 2017Mateo Cortez, as Representative of the Estate of Deborah Cortez v. Sandra Flesher Brown, Charlotte Flesher Ash, Charlene Flesher Johnston, Connie Lou Keith Barry, Randall Wayne Davis, Virginia Villers, Charles Roberts, Lisa A. Smith, Patricia Chapman, Betty J. Marks Webb, James Berl Marks, Linda Murray Tex. App.
  • 2016David v. Goss v. Addax Minerals Fund, LP and AG Royalties, LLC Tex. App.
Cites 1 case

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Opinion

Douglas O. HENSON & International Aero, Inc., Petitioners, v. ESTATE OF Bruce L. CROW, Respondent.

Attorneys

  • Dennis G. Brewer, Sr., Brewer, Brewer, Suggs & Associates, Irving, for petitioners.
  • L. Nelson Hall, Head & Kendrick, Corpus Christi, for respondent.
majority WALLACE, Justice.

This is a suit on an oral lease of real property. Douglas 0. Henson and International Aero, Inc. sued Bruce L. Crow for rental payments due under an oral lease. Shortly prior to trial, Bruce L. Crow died and his attorney filed a Notice of Death. Henson filed an amended petition naming the Estate of Bruce L. Crow as defendant. The attorney who had represented Crow filed an amended answer on behalf of the Estate of Bruce L. Crow. Trial was had on those pleadings. The trial court rendered judgment that Henson take nothing. In an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

The record of the case contains no statement of facts. The trial court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The sole point addressed by the court of appeals was “whether, as a matter of law, a deposition may never be the basis of judicial estoppel.” We do not find it necessary to address that question.

The dispositive question before us is the holding of the trial court that the Estate of Bruce L. Crow was not a legal entity and cannot be sued as such. This holding is correct. Price v. Estate of Anderson, 522 S.W.2d 690, 691 (Tex.1975).

Henson contends that Crow’s attorney, by filing an answer on behalf of the estate, waived the error of no legal entity being named. He cites as authority cases in which the personal representative of the estate appeared and participated in the trial. Our facts are distinguishable. Here, no personal representative made an appearance. There is nothing in the record to show that the attorney was representing the personal representative of the estate.

Henson further contends that error was waived by a failure of the Estate of Crow to except to the defect in Henson’s pleadings. This merely begs the question. Inasmuch as no legal entity was named as a defendant, there was no one to except to the pleadings or waive any defect therein.

The judgments of the courts below are affirmed.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.