J. H. T. Mills applied to the County Court of Hill County to have an instrument in writing admitted to probate as the will of Ella D. Mills. This was contested by Marshall Mills and others, who denied its genuineness, and appealed to the District Court from a judgment admitting it to probate. In the District Court the will so presented was reiected and probate thereof refused, on verdict of a jury, and J. H. T. Mills appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals.
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
““It has come to our attention that the Court of Civil Appeals in its disposition of the case did not Consider certain assignments of error presented by the appellant there relating to the admissibility of certain testimony, but reversed the judgment of the District Court upon another and independent ground. “The Supreme Court is without jurisdiction of the assignments of error relating to this testimony, and the Court of Civil Appeals should not be denied the opportunity of determining them.””
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1921-06-01
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently August 1972
1 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶2
In approving the report of the Commission of Appeals in this case, and in accord with its recommendation, we originally reversed the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and remanded the case to the District Court for further trial.
¶3
It has come to our attention that the Court of Civil Appeals in its disposiiton of the ease did not consider certain assignments of error presented by the appellant there relating to the admissibility of certain testimony, but reversed the judgment of the District Court upon another and independent ground.
¶4*266
The Supreme Court is without jurisdiction of the assignments of error relating to this testimony, and the Court of Civil Appeals should not be denied the opportunity of determining them.
¶5
Both motions for rehearing, filed respectively by the plaintiffs in error and the defendant in error, will be overruled. Our judgment reversing the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals will stand, but instead of the cause being remanded to the District Court, as was done originally, it will be remanded to the Court of Civil Appeals for its consideration of the assignments of error on the testimony questions.
¶6
Reversed .and remanded to■ Court of Civil Appeals.
