Heffner v. Brander

• Decision Date: 01 January 1859
• Citation: 23 Tex. 631
• Parties: JAMES HEFFNER, ADMINISTRATOR, v. BRANDER AND OTHERS.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

23 Tex. 631

JAMES HEFFNER, ADMINISTRATOR,

v.BRANDER AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1859.

The validity of a claim against an estate, for money, duly allowed by the administrator, and approved by the chief justice, cannot afterwards be questioned in the county court.

An appeal does not lie from the allowance and approval of a claim by the administrator, and the chief justice; nor is it such an order as can be revised upon certiorari, by the district court.

The allowance and approval of a claim against an estate, can only be set aside or nullified, by an original proceeding, commenced in the district court for that purpose; and it is not done as a matter of course, but only upon the fullest proof. It is enough that it appears, on its face, to be barred by the statute of limitations. 5 Tex. 487;11 Tex. 116;16 Tex. 136;28 Tex. 732;ante, 254, 496.

APPEAL from Panola. Tried below before the Hon. Reuben A. Reeves. The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion.

BELL, J.

The appellees, Brander, Williams & Co., were the holders of a claim against the estate of Joshua T. Gill, deceased, of which estate the appellant, Heffner, was the administrator. The claim of the appellees was presented to the administrator, and allowed by him; and, shortly afterwards, was approved by the chief justice of Panola county. Subsequently to the allowance and approval of their claim, Brander, Williams & Co. filed an application in the county court, praying for an order to require the administrator to sell property of the estate, for the payment of the claim. The administrator resisted this application, on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation at the time of its allowance and approval, and ought not, therefore, to be enforced against the estate. The county court granted the prayer of the appellees, and ordered the administrator to sell property to pay the claim. The administrator obtained a writ of certiorari, and removed the cause to the district court, to have the orders and decrees of the county court, in the premises, revised and corrected. In the district court, the parties pleaded at great length, and but little respect seems to have been paid to the fact, that the claim in question had been allowed by the administrator, and approved by the chief justice. On the trial, the court instructed the jury as if the suit had been an original proceeding by Brander, Williams & Co., to establish their claim against the estate of Gill. The jury were told, that if the claim was founded on a draft drawn by Gill, on the appellees, the claim would not be barred until after four years from the maturity of the draft; and in that event, the plaintiffs, Brander, Williams & Co., were...