Fahey v. Boulmay
| Citation | 59 S.W. 300 |
| Parties | FAHEY v. BOULMAY et al. |
| Decision Date | 26 October 1900 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Action by Matthew S. Boulmay and others against David Fahey. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant brings error. Affirmed.
John C. Walker, for plaintiff in error. R. W. Houk, for defendants in error.
This action was brought in the district court by the defendants in error against the sureties upon the bond of P. S. Wren, as guardian of the minors Matthew S., Catherine R., and Mary S. Boulmay, children of Isaac Boulmay, deceased, to recover money shown to be due by the judgment of the probate court. Wren qualified as guardian of the minors, and executed a bond as guardian, approved January 17, 1883, payable to the county judge of the county of Galveston, conditioned "that whereas, the above-bound P. S. Wren has been appointed by the county judge of Galveston guardian of the estate of said minors, now, if the said P. S. Wren shall well and truly perform all the duties required of him under said appointment, then this obligation will be null and void; otherwise, to remain in full force and effect." The caption of the bond was: etc. Pending the guardianship, the minor Mary S. Boulmay died, and her share of the estate was inherited by her brother and sister, Matthew and Catherine, and her mother, the appellee Kate Dawson, who was the widow of Isaac Boulmay, deceased. On September 18, 1899, the county court of Galveston county, after due citation to P. S. Wren, removed him from the guardianship of Catherine R. Boulmay, and appointed for her another guardian, who afterwards qualified. Matthew S. Boulmay had in the meantime become of age. The decree of removal recited that "the said P. S. Wren, guardian, has wholly failed and refused to obey the order of this court, made and entered on the 29th day of July, 1899, commanding him to pay to Matthew S. Boulmay the sum of eight hundred and eighty-seven and 30/100 dollars, and to Catherine R. Boulmay the sum of eight hundred and eighty-seven and 30/100 dollars, and to Kate Dawson the sum of one hundred and fourteen dollars." The decree of July 29, 1899, referred to in the order of removal, was regularly entered upon the answer of the guardian to a citation to return a final account...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. Parker
......728, 32 Misc. 195; Neel v. Com. (Penn.) 4 Sadler 95, 7 A. 74; Hornung v. Schramm, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 327, 54 S.W. 615; Fahey. v. Boulmay, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 279, 59 S.W. 300. . . 2. The. plaintiff in error challenges the jurisdiction of the. district court ......
-
American Surety Co. of New York v. Fitzgerald
...81 Tex. 396, 399, 17 S. W. 15, 26 Am. St. Rep. 821; Whitfield v. Burrell. 54 Tex. Civ. App. 567, 118 S. W. 153, 157; Fahey v. Boulmay, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 279, 59 S. W. 300; Minchew v. Case (Tex. Civ. App.) 143 S. W. 366; Holman v. Ward (Tex. Com. App.) 288 S. W. Appellant insists that, as th......
-
Groene v. Kostohris (In re Estate), 7190.
...619, 178 N. W. 178;Gantz v. Gease, 82 Ohio St. 34, 91 N. E. 872;Chilton v. Parks, 15 Ala. 671;Fahey v. Boulmay, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 279, 59 S. W. 300;Shepard v. Pebbles, 38 Wis. 373; see 28 C. J. 1294. In order to clear the way for argument on the assertion that there is no evidence to warran......
-
In re Kostohris' Estate
...... 641; Langdon v. Langdon, 104 Neb. 619, 178 N.W. 178;. Gantz v. Gease, 82 Ohio St. 34, 91 N.E. 872;. Chilton v. Parks, 15 Ala. 671; Fahey v. Boulmay, 24 Tex.Civ.App. 279, 59 S.W. 300; Shepard. v. Pebbles, 38 Wis. 373; see 28 C.J. 1294. . . In. order to clear ......