Ingersol v. McWillie

Decision Date25 January 1895
Citation30 S.W. 56
PartiesINGERSOL et al. v. McWILLIE et al.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Actions by A. M. Ingersol and B. F. Coleman against Ada A. McWillie and N. S. Ernst, contesting defendants' application for appointment as administrator and administratrix of the estate of A. R. Collins, deceased. There was a judgment of the county court for defendants, and in the district court of appeals the actions were consolidated, and upon trial judgment was rendered for defendants, from which plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

LIGHTFOOT, C. J.

The statement by appellants is concurred in by appellees, and is adopted, as follows: "This is a contest over the right to administer upon the estate of A. R. Collins, deceased. The case originated in the county court of Grayson county, Texas, in February, 1893. A. R. Collins died intestate at his home in Grayson county. Afterwards, C. T. Daugherty was duly appointed by the county court of Grayson county as administrator of said estate, and as such administrator gave the bond and took the oath required by law. On February 17, 1894, the said C. T. Daugherty departed this life, without having fully administered said estate. After the death of said C. T. Daugherty, Mrs. Ada A. McWillie and N. S. Ernst filed their application in the county court of said county for letters of administration de bonis non upon the estate of said Collins, and afterwards A. M. Ingersol and B. F. Coleman contested the appointment of Mrs. Ada A. McWillie and N. S. Ernst, and requested that they be appointed. A trial was had in the county court of said county, which resulted in the appointment of Mrs. McWillie and Ernst. From the judgment appointing them administratrix and administrator of this estate, Ingersol and Coleman appealed to the district court of Grayson county. In said last-mentioned court the parties amended their pleadings. The applicants, Mrs. Ada A. McWillie and N. S. Ernst, after setting out the jurisdictional facts, and the necessity for administration, alleged that the said decedent left as his surviving wife Hortense Collins, and two children, to wit, Walter Collins, aged sixteen years, and Gretchen Collins, aged eighteen months. They also alleged that they were entitled to letters of administration upon said estate by reason of the renunciation in their favor of said Hortense Collins. They also alleged that they were entitled to administer by reason of the indorsement and request of many creditors of said estate. They further alleged that they were entitled to administer upon said estate by reason of the renunciation in their favor of Mrs. Lucy Wilder, who resides in the county of Genessee, state of New York, who was the aunt and next of kin of the said A. R. Collins, deceased, after the said Hortense Collins, Walter Collins, and Gretchen Collins; and they also alleged that N. S. Ernst was a creditor of said estate, and that his coapplicant, Ada A. McWillie, is a cousin of said Collins, and the next of kin to him residing in the state of Texas, after the said Hortense, Walter, and Gretchen Collins. The amended application of the said A. M. Ingersol alleged that he was the first cousin of the said A. R. Collins, deceased, and that he was a citizen of Grayson county, Texas, and that he was no way disqualified to act as such administrator; that the applicant Ada A. McWillie was a married woman, and only a second cousin of said A. R. Collins, deceased; that the said Hortense Collins was not the surviving wife of said A. R. Collins, as claimed by her; that she already had a suit pending in the district court against the estate of A. R. Collins, whereby she seeks to establish the fact that she is such surviving wife. After alleging other facts not necessary to be stated here, said Ingersol alleged that, if he was not entitled to administer alone or with another, then he averred that B. F. Coleman was a suitable person to administer upon said estate, and waived his right to administer in favor of said Coleman. The amended protest and application of B. F. Coleman alleged that he resided in Grayson county, and that he was not disqualified by law from having letters of administration granted him upon said estate; that at the time of his death the said Collins was an unmarried man, and did not leave surviving him any father or mother, and that the sole surviving next of kin of said Collins was Walter D. Collins, who was about seventeen years of age, and who resided in Grayson county, Texas, and who was a son of the said decedent; that the said Walter D. Collins, by power of attorney, duly authenticated and filed, renounced any right he might have to administer upon said estate in favor of the applicant B. F. Coleman, and that said Walter D. Collins would renounce any right he might have to such appointment, in open court, in favor of Coleman; that M. A. Daugherty, who resides in McLennan county, Texas, is the duly-appointed and qualified guardian of the person and estate of said Walter D. Collins, and that the said Daugherty will, in open court, renounce his right to be appointed administrator of said estate in favor of the applicant Coleman; that, excluding from consideration the said Walter D. Collins, the following persons are the next of kin of the said A. R. Collins, deceased, to wit, William W. Collins, who resides in Calhoun county, Michigan, and S. A. Collins, who resides in Jackson county, Michigan, both of whom are uncles by blood of the said A. R. Collins, deceased, and both of whom, by power of attorney, duly authenticated, have renounced any right they may have to administer upon said estate in favor of applicant Coleman; that, excluding from consideration the son and two uncles above named, the following are the next of kin of the said A. R. Collins, deceased, to wit, Addison C. Collins, W. B. Collins, Charles E. Collins, Cynthia W. Wallace, and Ida Palmer, each and all of whom reside in Washtenaw county, Michigan; that the five persons last named were each first cousins by blood of the said decedent, and that each and all of said five cousins, by powers of attorney, duly authenticated and filed herein, have renounced any right that they and each of them may have to administer upon said estate in favor of the applicant Coleman. And said B. F. Coleman alleged that a large number of the creditors of said estate desired and requested his appointment as such administrator. The said B. F. Coleman also represented that at the time of his death the said A. R. Collins left surviving him no wife; that the person named in the application of N. S. Ernst and Ada A. McWillie as the wife of A. R. Collins, to wit, Mrs. Hortense Dix Collins, was not in fact and in truth the surviving wife of said decedent; that after the death of said A. R. Collins, and after the appointment of said C. T. Daugherty, the child of the said Hortense Dix Collins, through its next friend, A. G. Moseley, made an application to the county court of Grayson county for an allowance of five thousand dollars in lieu of a homestead, and also an allowance for one year's support and maintenance, and for an allowance of articles of exempt property not found in kind among the property of said estate; that upon the hearing of said application the said county court adjudged and decreed that the child of Hortense Dix Collins and the said Hortense Dix Collins were entitled to an allowance of the character and nature above named to the amount of six thousand one hundred and twenty-five dollars; that, after the rendition of said judgment, the administrator of said estate, Daugherty, appealed from such judgment in the manner provided by law, and that such appeal is now pending in this court; that while ostensibly the said Hortense Dix Collins is not a party to the said last-named suit, and is not by name a party to this suit, yet in truth she is a party to the issue joined, as well in this suit as the one just mentioned; that the said N. S. Ernst and Ada A. McWillie are seeking to be appointed administratrix and administrator upon the renunciation in their favor by the said so-called Hortense Dix Collins, and also upon the application of the said Ada A. McWillie, as next of kin to the said A. R. Collins, deceased, when in fact and in truth the said Ada A. McWillie is only a second cousin of said decedent. The prayer of the contestant and applicant B. F. Coleman was that letters of administration de bonis non be not granted to said Ada A. McWillie and N. S. Ernst, but that he be appointed as such administrator, and for all equitable, general, and special relief." In the district court the appeals of B. F. Coleman and A. M. Ingersol were consolidated, upon motion of Ingersol. The consolidated causes were tried in the district court of Grayson county on May 10, 1894, and resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of Mrs. Ada A. McWillie and N. S. Ernst, from which this appeal is taken.

There was much controversy in the testimony, but from the verdict of the jury, and the judgment thereon, the conclusion is established that Hortense Dix was educated by R. A. Collins, by the consent of her mother, with the view of making her his wife; that, after she finished her education, he actually entered into the marriage state with her, each mutually agreeing that they would then and thenceforward be husband and wife, and, upon the faith of such mutual agreement and promise, they then cohabited and lived together as such husband and wife, and so continued; and that said A. R. Collins, after such agreement and cohabitation, recognized said Hortense as his wife, and introduced her to his friends as such, and such relation continued until his death; and that at the time of his death, in February, 1893, he left her as his surviving widow. She renounced her right to administer on said estate to appellees.

1. The first assignment of error is as follows: "The court erred in permitting the witness ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • In re Ascertaining and Declaring Rights of Heirs and Persons Who have a Claim or Interest in Estate of Tormey's
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 19 Mayo 1927
    ... ... applies with peculiar force." (Teter v. Teter, ... 101 Ind. 129, 51 Am. Rep. 742; Franklin v. Lee, 30 ... Ind.App. 31, 62 N.E. 78; Ingersol v. McWillie, 9 ... Tex. Civ. App. 543, 30 S.W. 56; Shuman v. Shuman, 83 ... Wis. 250, 53 N.W. 455; Godfrey v. Rowland, 16 Hawaii ... 377; In re ... ...
  • Lee v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 17 Diciembre 1902
    ...lived together, acknowledging each other as husband and wife, for years after the consummation of the marriage. In Ingersol v. McWillie (Tex. Civ. App.) 30 S. W. 56, Chief Justice Lightfoot, delivering the opinion of the court, after commenting upon the failure to get a license, said: "Of c......
  • Succession of Marinoni
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • 4 Noviembre 1935
    ...with peculiar force.' Teter v. Teter, 101 Ind. 129, 51 Am.Rep. 742; Franklin v. Lee, 30 Ind.App. 31, 62 N.E. 78. "In Ingersol v. McWillie, 9 Tex.Civ.App. 543, 30 S.W. 56; Shuman v. Shuman, 83 Wis. 250, 53 N.W. 455; Godfrey v. Rowland, 16 Hawaii 377, it is held that -- "'The presumption of l......
  • Scott v. McKibban
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 22 Octubre 1937
    ...825; Davidson v. Gray (Tex. Civ.App.) 97 S.W.2d 488, 491; Shelley v. Nolen, 39 Tex.Civ.App. 307, 88 S.W. 524, 530; Ingersol v. McWillie, 9 Tex.Civ.App. 543, 30 S.W. 56, 59; Barnett v. Houston, 18 Tex.Civ.App. 134, 44 S.W. 689, 693; Mayfield v. Robinson, 22 Tex.Civ.App. 385, 55 S.W. 399, 401......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT