Blackwell v. Blackwell

• Decision Date: 04 December 1893
• Citation: 24 S.W. 389
• Parties: BLACKWELL et al. v. BLACKWELL et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

24 S.W. 389

BLACKWELL et al. v. BLACKWELL et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

December 4, 1893.

Error from court of civil appeals of first supreme judicial district.

The county court disapproved of the final account of Jasper L. Blackwell, executor of Jediah Blackwell, and on appeal to the district court the judgment was reversed. On appeal the court of civil appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court. Wiley Blackwell and others bring error. Reversed.

J. H. Turner, for plaintiffs in error. G. H. Gould, J. H. Jones, and N. B. Morris, for defendants in error.

BROWN, J.

This cause originated in the county court of Rusk county in a matter of probate. The facts necessary to the disposition of the questions involved are as follows: Jediah Blackwell made a will and died at some time prior to the 24th day of May, 1874. In his will he disposed of his estate, and, among other things, gave to his wife, Nancy Blackwell, for her natural life, 310 acres of land out of a tract of 930 acres. After her death the land was to be equally divided among his heirs. He appointed Jasper L. Blackwell executor of the will, which was duly probated on the 24th day of May, 1874, and the executor qualified on that day. On the 28th day of the same month the executor turned over the 310 acres of land to Nancy Blackwell, and she went into possession of it. There seems to have been no order of the court directing the land to be delivered to her. The whole tract — 930 acres — was returned by the executor upon the inventory of the property of the estate. On the 28th day of December, 1877, Nancy Blackwell conveyed the 310 acres to Jasper L. Blackwell, who took possession of it, and made improvements upon it to the value of $3,800. Nancy Blackwell died on the ____ day of ____, 1879. From the facts found by the court of civil appeals, it does not appear what kind of deed was made by Nancy Blackwell to Jasper L. Blackwell. The court found that he took possession and claimed title to the land. In 1882 the executor filed, in the county court of Rusk county, an account for final settlement, which showed on hand some money, and some claims reported to be insolvent. The account was by the county court approved, and the money ordered to be distributed among the heirs, which was done. The court made no order discharging the executor, nor disposing of the claims reported to be insolvent, nor of the land in question. In 1887 the executor filed in said court a report stating that a claim which had been reported as insolvent, could be compromised, asking that the estate be reopened for that purpose, and that he be permitted to compromise the claim. The court entered an order reopening the estate for the purpose of compromising the claim and approving the compromise. The claim was compromised, and the executor in that settlement acquired some lands, which he rented out, and rendered to the court annual reports of the rents and expenses, for the years 1888 and 1889, and on August 30, 1890, upon application of the heirs, he filed in the court an additional final account, asking for final discharge. This account was contested by the heirs because he did not include in his report the land in question. Upon hearing, the county court disapproved the account, and ordered that the land be distributed among the heirs, and that the executor account for the rents. The executor appealed to the district court, where the case was tried de novo before Hon. J. H. Wood, special judge, who approved the account of the executor, holding that the probate court had no jurisdiction to try the title between the executor and the heirs. It appears that the executor claimed title to the land under the deed from Nancy Blackwell to himself. The court of civil appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Three questions of law arise upon the facts and the rulings of the courts: First, was the estate of Jediah Blackwell closed by the order made in 1883 by the county court, approving the final account of the executor, and ordering a distribution of the money on hand among the heirs? Second. Was there, in this case, such a controversy over the title to the land in question as prevented the county court from ordering the partition of it among the heirs? Third. Was the 310-acre tract of land a part of the estate, and subject to partition by the county court?

The first question is settled by the statute in force at the time that the order of court was made, approving the account. Article 1829, Rev. St., provides that, where letters testamentary or of the administration shall have once been granted, any person interested in the administration may proceed,...