Heirs of Noble v. Jones
| Decision Date | 01 January 1871 |
| Parties | HEIRS OF P. H. NOBLE v. H. N. JONES, ADMINISTRATOR. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
1. An administrator having, in the management of the estate, exercised all the diligence he could have exercised had the business been his own, is not liable for want of that degree of diligence required by the probate law of 1870.
2. Section 173 of the probate law of 1870 provides, “that the court shall exercise equitable control in making executors or administrators accountable for interest accruing to the estate;” and it appearing to this court that this power was equitably exercised in the present cause by the court below, it declines disturbing the judgment.
APPEAL from Grimes. Tried below before the Hon. J. R. Burnett. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
J. C. Hutcheson, for appellants.
Boone & Goodrich, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the district court, sitting in probate matters, wherein the appellee, as administrator on the estate of P. H. Noble, deceased, filed his final exhibit and account of the estate, and asked that the same be approved by the court, and that he be discharged from any further responsibility in the premises. The heirs of P. H. Noble protested against the approval of the exhibit of the administrator, claiming that the same was not a correct statement of the moneys collected by the administrator; and charging that through his negligence in collecting claims due the estate, and the want of care in attending to the interest of the same, the estate had been greatly damaged. They further claim that the administrator had, for a long time, used the money belonging to said estate as his own money, and that therefore he should be compelled to pay interest on the same for the full time the money was so held and used. The whole matter was submitted to the court, and a judgment and decree were entered up approving the final statement of the administrator, and discharging him from any further administration; to which judgment and decree the heirs excepted, and gave notice of an appeal, and now ask a reversal of that judgment by this court.
There is no assignment of errors, and we are left to discover the same by an inspection of the record. The final statement and account of the administrator appear to be full and correct, so far as the statement of facts shows; and we have been unable to discover any cause for disturbing the judgment of the district court. In their brief, appellants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harward v. Robinson
...Furman v. Coe, 1 Cal. 96; Raynor v. Prescott, 3 Johnson, Ch. 578; Rubottom v. Morrow, 24 Ind. 202; Mikell v. Mikell, 5 Rich. 220; Noble v. Jones, 35 Tex. 692; Dorchester v. Effingham, Tamlin, 279; Key v. Jones, 52 Ala. 238. BAKER, J. This controversy arises upon the final settlement of an a......
-
Holeman v. Blue
...Ala. 438. A trustee is not an insurer against losses which ordinary sagacity could not prevent: Rubottom v. Morrow, 24 Ind. 202; Noble v. Jones, 35 Tex. 692. Mr. I. M. KIRKPATRICK, for appellee; upon the liability of the guardian, cited 3 Wait's Actions and Defenses, 594; Scott v. Carruth, ......
-
Dallas Tailors' Supply Co. v. Goen
...on his bond shall be liable, * * * by his neglect to use such diligence." Under the statute, and as said by the Supreme Court in Noble v. Jones, 35 Tex. 692, the administrator is not required to exercise any higher degree of diligence than an ordinarily prudent person would take in the mana......
- Brown v. State