Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

138 S.W. 107

Durrill v. Robison

Texas Supreme Court

Decided June 7, 1911

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1911-06-07

<p>Infants (§ 11*) — Disabilities—Removal.</p> <p>Under a statute authorizing a removal of the disabilities of infancy in certain cases by the district court of the county where the minor resides, an order purporting to remove the disabilities of relator, showing on its face that she was only temporarily a resident of that county, she having gone there to get her disabilities removed, with the intention to return to her home county, was void.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other casesi see Infants, Dec. Dig. § 11.*]</p>

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1924

4 state decisions

Relies on Cunningham v. Robison

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Overruled · Decided 1911-06-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BROWN, C. J.

¶1It appears from the judgment of the district court of Travis county, purporting to remove the disabilities' of relator, that she was not a resident of the county of Travis within the meaning of the statute. Her application shows that she came to Travis county for the purpose of getting her disabilities removed, and that she intended as soon as she accomplished that purpose to return to El Paso county. The court recites in its order that she is temporarily a resident of Travis county. The statute provides that the proceeding must be had in the county where the minor resides, and, it appearing upon the face of the proceeding that she did not reside in Travis county, the order is void. Cunningham v. Robison, 136 S. W. 441. Being a minor, the relator is not qualified to purchase the land.

¶2It is therefore ordered that the motion be overruled, at the cost of the relator.

/138/sw/107 · .json · Public domain