Kent v. McDaniel
Decision Date | 09 June 1915 |
Docket Number | (No. 5505.) |
Citation | 178 S.W. 1006 |
Parties | KENT v. McDANIEL et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Hill County; Horton B. Porter, Judge.
Proceeding by W. E. McDaniel, as temporary administrator of J. B. McDaniel, deceased, against Mrs. Kate L. Kent and another, for the appointment of a trustee in the place of said J. B. McDaniel in which J. H. Weatherby was appointed as trustee. From the judgment, the named defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Clendenen & Simmons, of Ft. Worth, for appellant. T. H. Jackson and Morrow & Morrow, all of Hillsboro, for appellees.
Nature and Result of the Case.
We adopt from appellant's brief the following statement of the nature and result of this case:
Findings of Fact.
We adopt the following agreed facts, which were admitted by all parties in open court:
"(1) That J. B. McDaniel duly qualified as independent executor of the estate of Ceyota McLain, deceased, and fully administered said estate; (2) that the said J. B. McDaniel accepted the trust imposed upon him under the will of Ceyota McLain; (3) that the said J. B. McDaniel, while acting as trustee for the said D. M. Kent, Jr., under the terms of the said will of the said Ceyota McLain, died on the 29th day of June, 1913, having in his possession at the date of his death $11,328.13, the property of said trust estate; (4) that the said J. B. McDaniel left a will, duly probated by the probate court of Hill county, Tex., in which W. E. McDaniel is named as executor of his estate, and that the said W. E. McDaniel duly qualified as such executor; (5) that the said W. E. McDaniel, as such executor, has taken possession of the estate of the said J. B. McDaniel, deceased, and has possession of the said $11,328.13 held by the said J. B. McDaniel, deceased, at the date of his death as trustee under the said will of the said Ceyota McLain; (6) that the defendant, Kate Kent, is the mother of Dudley M. Kent, a minor of the age of 9 years; that said defendant, Kate Kent, is a feme sole, having procured a divorce from her husband, D. M. Kent, Sr., in the district court of Tarrant county, Tex.; that under the decree granting said divorce, the said Kate Kent was awarded the custody of said minor, and that said minor resides with the said Kate Kent in the city of Ft. Worth, Tarrant county, Tex."
The appellant, Mrs. Kate L. Kent, is the only child of Mrs. Ceyota McLain, deceased, and is the mother of Dudley M. Kent, Jr., who is her only child and who is about 10 years of age. J. B. McDaniel brought a suit in the district court of Hill county to have the will of Mrs. McLain construed. We make the following excerpt from the judgment in that suit:
"
No appeal was taken from said judgment.
The first issue raised by appellant's assignments of error is as to whether the district court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of this suit. It is the contention of appellant that the personal property bequeathed to Dudley M. Kent, Jr., belongs to the estate of said minor, and, the trustee appointed by the will to control the same having died, the control thereof belongs to the probate court of the proper county, to be exercised by the appointment of a guardian, and that the district court has no original jurisdiction in such matter. In support of this contention appellant cites article 5, § 16, of the Constitution of Texas, which gives the county court original jurisdiction in probate matters, including the appointment of guardians for the estates of minors; and also article 4053, R. S., which prescribes the duties of county judges in matters of guardianship pending in their courts. Appellant also cites Prince v. Ladd (Sup.) 15 S. W. 159; In re Estate of Grant, 93 Tex. 68, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Drake
...247, 47 S.W. 708; McNeill v. St. Aubin (Tex.Civ.App.) 209 S.W. 781; Haldeman v. Openheimer, 103 Tex. 275, 126 S.W. 566; Kent v. McDaniel (Tex.Civ. App.) 178 S.W. 1006. But such rules have no application to the instant case. The rule applicable to this proceeding and sought to be invoked by ......
-
Moore v. Sanders
...over the estates of such wards. We think the trial court had authority to make the allowance. 65 C.J. p. 676; Kent v. McDaniel (Tex.Civ.App.) 178 S.W. 1006. Finding no reversible error in the record, the decree is ...