Chapman v. Chapman
Cases that cite this one
37 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Free-Flow Muffler Company v. Kliewer (Tex. App. 1955)
- Bishop v. Japhet (Tex. App. 1914)
- in Re: Roger Arash Farahmand (Tex. App. 2015)
- The Texas Co. v. State (Tex. App. 1954)
- Republic Ins. Co. v. Dickson (Tex. App. 1935)
- Barnes v. Missouri, K. &. T. Ry. Co. of Texas (Tex. App. 1928)
- City of Desdemona v. Wilhite (Tex. App. 1927)
- Hubb-Diggs Co. v. Mitchell (Tex. App. 1921)
- Zurn v. Mitchell (Tex. App. 1917)
- Smith v. Nesbitt (Tex. App. 1916)
- Kimmons v. Abraham (Tex. App. 1915)
- Jordan v. Johnson (Tex. App. 1913)
- Turner v. Rhea (Tex. App. 1958)
- Banker v. Jefferson County Water Control & Improvement District No. One (Tex. App. 1955)
- Ramsey v. Dunlop (Tex. 1947)
- Gillette Motor Transport Co. v. Wichita Falls & Southern R. (Tex. App. 1943)
- Mutual Life Ins. Ass'n v. Smelley (Tex. App. 1934)
- Manufacturers' Finance Corp. v. Fort Worth Paper Co. (Tex. App. 1933)
- Burford Oil Co. v. Jefferies (Tex. App. 1933)
- Gabert v. Eastus (Tex. App. 1933)
- Blackwell v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (Tex. App. 1932)
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Jones Inv. Co. (Tex. App. 1932)
- Henderson Tire & Rubber Co. v. Roberts (Tex. App. 1927)
- Fisher v. El Paso Egg Producers' Ass'n (Tex. App. 1925)
- Tri-State Motor Co. v. King (Tex. App. 1925)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—In refusing the application in this case, we desire to say, that we do so because we fully concur with the Court *642 of Civil Appeals in holding, that the decision of the case does not involve the adjudication of the rights of the applicant to an undivided half of the property acquired by the intestate since their putative marriage. This being a contest as to a right to administer upon the estate, that question could not properly be brought into the case either in the County Court or in the District Court, to which an appeal was taken.
We think the Court of Civil Appeals correctly held, - that the appellee was lawfully married to the intestate, and that she was therefore his lawful widow, and was entitled under the statute to administer the estate.
The application for a writ of error is therefore refused.
Eefused.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.