Bailey v. Bailey, 2789.
Decision Date | 20 May 1948 |
Docket Number | No. 2789.,2789. |
Citation | 212 S.W.2d 189 |
Parties | BAILEY v. BAILEY. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Hill County; Frank G. McDonald, Judge.
Proceeding in the matter of the estate of James L. Bailey and Mrs. Essie Bailey, wherein Boyd Bailey, executor, in his final account, listed George Ellis Bailey as a debtor to the estate. From a judgment decreeing that the executor should deduct $1,222 from a share of the personalty bequeathed to George Ellis Bailey, George Ellis Bailey appeals.
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part.
Crawford C. Martin, of Hillsboro, for appellant.
M. S. Wood and John Abney, both of Hillsboro, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court approving the final account of the independent executor without bond of the joint will of James L. Bailey and Mrs. Essie Bailey (heretofore filed in and approved by the County court, which final account, among other things, set out that George Ellis Bailey was indebted to the estate in the amount of $1222.00). The judgment of the district court decreed in effect that the independent executor shall deduct $1222.00 from the share of the personalty bequeathed to George Ellis Bailey. The case was tried before the court without a jury and upon the request of appellant the trial court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The pertinent parts are:
The court concluded as a matter of law:
Item II of the joint will is:
II. I, the said James L. Bailey, do hereby give to my beloved wife, Mrs. Essie Bailey, all of my estate, real, personal and mixed of whatsoever name and nature and wheresoever situate so long as she may live, and after her death the same to be disposed of as hereinafter stated."
Item III appointed Mrs. Essie Bailey independent executrix of the will without bond and independent of the orders of the court, and further provided: "She is authorized to rent the lands and receive and use the rental income therefrom from time to time as she may choose and without being accountable to any person for the same or any part thereof." This provision of the will is in direct and irreconcilable conflict with the conclusions of law filed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Estate of Perez-Muzza
...it premised its decision on the doctrine of advancement, which has no application when there is a will. Bailey v. Bailey, 212 S.W.2d 189, 191 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1948, writ ref'd) ; seeTex. Est.Code Ann. § 201.151(a) (West Pamph.2013). Accordingly, we hold that Veronica is not estopped from ......
-
Enserch Exploration, Inc. v. Wimmer, 07-85-0137-CV
...such a tenancy. Hobson v. Shelton, 302 S.W.2d 268, 272 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1957, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Bailey v. Bailey, 212 S.W.2d 189, 191 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1948, writ ref'd); Medlin v. Medlin, 203 S.W.2d 635, 640 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1947, writ ref'd). Indeed, in words similar to thos......
-
Pruner v. Lovejoy, 3570
...has the burden of proving such fact. Rutherford v. Deaver, Tex.Com.App., 235 S.W. 853, opinion adopted Sup.Ct.; Bailey v. Bailey, Tex.Civ.App., 212 S.W.2d 189, W/E Petitioners have duly plead that the amounts received by respondents were advancements. Their proof consisted of the testimony ......
-
Irwin v. Irwin
...the partition. It is held that the burden of proving that a transaction is an advancement is on the party so contending. Bailey v. Bailey, Tex.Civ.App., 212 S.W.2d 189 (Writ Ref.). Also see Interpretative Commentary following § 44 of the Probate Appellant contends that the evidence does sho......