In re Supples' Estate
Decision Date | 21 June 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 10526.,10526. |
Citation | 131 S.W.2d 13 |
Parties | In re SUPPLES' ESTATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Seventy-Third Judicial District, Bexar County; Jno. F. Onion, Judge.
Proceeding in the matter of the estate of Michael L. Supples, N. C. M., wherein A. T. Forst, as administrator of the estate of Michael L. Supples, deceased, filed a bill of review to set aside an order of the probate court approving certain expenditures made by John T. Hildebrandt, as guardian of the estate of Michael L. Supples, N. C. M., and by Josephine Hildebrandt, as a subsequent guardian, and to set aside an order of the probate court approving the final account of John T. Hildebrandt, former guardian, then deceased, which was filed on his behalf by his wife, Josephine Hildebrandt. From the action of the probate court in sustaining the bill of review and entering an unsatisfactory order, Josephine Hildebrandt and others appealed to the district court where the proceeding was consolidated with an appeal from an order sustaining exceptions to the final account of Josephine Hildebrandt, guardian of the estate of Michael L. Supples, N. C. M., and ordering her to restate her final account. From a judgment of the district court dismissing the bill of review, A. T. Forst, as administrator, appeals.
Affirmed, provided that Josephine Hildebrandt file a remittitur in the sum of $191.71.
D. H. Fly, of Hondo, and John P. Pfeiffer, of San Antonio, for appellant.
Spears, Conger, Baskin & Spears, Johnson & Rogers, R. H. Mercer, and Martin S. Tudyk, all of San Antonio, for appellee.
This suit is the consolidation of two matters originating in the Probate Court of Bexar County.
One of the matters in the probate court was in the nature of a bill of review seeking to set aside an order of the probate court dated January 22, 1936, approving certain expenditures made by John T. Hildebrandt, as guardian of the estate of Michael L. Supples, N. C. M., as well as certain expenditures made by Josephine Hildebrandt as a subsequent guardian of M. L. Supples, N. C. M., and further seeking to set aside an order dated January 28, 1936, of said probate court approving the final account of John T. Hildebrandt, former guardian, then deceased, which was filed on his behalf by his wife, Josephine Hildebrandt. The probate court sustained the bill of review and entered an order setting aside the order of January 22, 1936, and the order of January 28, 1936, and appeal from this order was taken to the District Court of Bexar County, 73rd Judicial District, by Josephine Hildebrandt, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, surety on the bond of John T. Hildebrandt, as guardian, and the Maryland Casualty Company, as surety on the bond of Mrs. Josephine Hildebrandt as a subsequent guardian of the estate of Michael L. Supples, N. C. M.
The other matter was an appeal from an order dated August 25, 1937, sustaining some of the exceptions to the final account of Josephine Hildebrandt, guardian of the estate of Michael L. Supples, N. C. M., and ordering her to restate her final account.
These two matters were consolidated in the District Court and heard before the court, without the intervention of a jury. Judgment was entered dismissing the bill of review for want of jurisdiction, because there was a lack of necessary parties, and approving the final account of Josephine Hildebrandt, guardian, after requiring a remittitur of $109.08. The judgment further provided that the two orders of the probate court, cancellation of which were sought by the bill of review, should not be disturbed in any respect.
From this judgment A. T. Forst, as administrator of the estate of Michael L. Supples, deceased, has prosecuted this appeal.
The trial judge made and filed the following findings of facts:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lone Star Cement Corp. v. Fair
...a reasonable construction placed on the instrument by the parties involved. This rule may also be applied to orders of courts. In re Supples' Estate, 131 S.W.2d 13 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1939, no Although the order here was poorly drawn, all parties involved in the cause, especially res......
-
Gutierrez v. Madero
...67 S.W.2d 437 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1933, writ ref'd); Cook v. Smith, 96 S.W.2d 318 (Tex.Civ.App. Galveston 1936, writ dism'd); In re Supples' Estate, 131 S.W.2d 13 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1939, no writ). It was further stated in Moore v. Horn, 359 S.W.2d 947 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1962, wri......
-
Smith v. Smith
...refused, and 'if possible, a judgment will be literally construed so as to make it serviceable instead of useless.' In re Supples' Estate, Tex.Civ.App., 131 S.W.2d 13, 18. Especially are these rules applicable with respect to judgment in matrimonial cases. As said in Black on Judgments, Vol......