Langley v. Harris

• Decision Date: 01 January 1859
• Citation: 23 Tex. 564
• Parties: LEONARD S. LANGLEY, ADMINISTRATOR, v. J. M. HARRIS, ADMINISTRATOR.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

23 Tex. 564

LEONARD S. LANGLEY, ADMINISTRATOR,

v.J. M. HARRIS, ADMINISTRATOR.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1859.

A petition in the county court, filed under article 1195 Hart. Dig., to require an administrator to make an exhibit of the condition of the estate, need not state more specifically the character of the indebtedness, than such facts, which, if true, show that the complainant is “a person interested in the estate.”

To require greater certainty, would introduce into the county court, in the settlement of estates, regular pleading, as in the district court, which never was intended to be done. 27 Tex. 528.

A provision in a will, exempting the executor from taking the oath, or giving the bond required by law, and that the county court shall exercise no other control over the estate, than probating the will, and inventorying the property, is a personal trust, confided by the testator to the executor; and the statute which gives the right to insert such a provision in a will, contemplates an acceptance of the trust by the executors. 30 Tex. 361.

Such special trust cannot be transferred by the trustee, nor delegated to another by the county court; and where the executor fails to accept and qualify under the will, and the court appoints an administrator, with the will annexed, then the case contemplated in this clause of the will, respecting the jurisdiction of the county court, has failed, and the clause is as inoperative as if it had been entirely omitted.

APPEAL from Anderson. Tried below before the Hon. Reuben A. Reeves.

This suit was begun in the county court, by the appellant, as administrator of the estate of W. B. Langley, deceased, against the appellee, as administrator, with the will annexed, of John Duval, deceased, by a petition, filed by the former against the latter, praying that he might be cited to make an exhibit, under oath, to the said court, setting forth fully in connection with his former exhibits, the condition of the estate which he represented.

The petition alleged, that the complainant was interested in the estate of the said Duval, deceased, and that, as he was informed and believed, the administrator thereof had funds in hand sufficient to pay the claim of the petitioner. The claim was not otherwise described, nor the complainant's interest in the estate otherwise shown, than as stated in the opinion.

Harris, the administrator, filed in the county court his answer, which consisted of a formal demurrer to the petition, and set forth, as grounds thereof, “that the petition did not show how the plaintiff was interested in the estate of said Duval, nor how he became a creditor of the same; that the petition assumed that there was no difference between an ordinary administration without a will, and an administration with a will annexed, containing the provisions of the 110th section of an act entitled ‘An act to regulate proceedings in the county court, pertaining to estates of deceased persons,’ passed March 20, 1848. Hart. Dig. art 1219. That the petition invoked the jurisdiction of the court, over a subject-matter of which it had no jurisdiction.” And further answering, he alleged, that John Duval, deceased, departed this life in the month of November, 1855, leaving a will, by the provisions of which his sons, Benjamin T., William J. W., and John R. Duval, were appointed executors thereof; that one of its provisions was, that no other action should be had in the county court of Anderson or any other county of Texas, in relation to the settlement of his estate, than the probate and registration of his will, and a return of an inventory of his estate. That the executors failed to have the same probated within the time prescribed by law, and the defendant was appointed and qualified administrator, with the will annexed; and, as such, had been administering the estate in accordance with the provisions of the said will; settling and discharging debts against the estate, as fast as assets came to hand; superintending, generally, the estate, in the same manner, and to the same extent as the original executors were authorized under the will to do, without obtaining any orders from the county court to that effect, or without holding himself in any way accountable to the county court for his acts as administrator with the will annexed.

The will, containing the clause before referred to, and the appointment of the three sons named as executors, with the authentication and record thereof, was set out in the transcript.

At the August term of the county court, 1858, on hearing of the petition, and the exceptions and answer, the exceptions were overruled, and the defendant, Harris, was required, by the order of the court, to make a full and complete exhibit of the condition of the estate of John Duval, deceased, and to show cause, if any he could, why the claim of the petitioner should not be paid.

The defendant, Harris, appealed to the district court, from this order; and, the cause coming on to be heard in that court, upon the same exceptions and demurrer of the defendant to the petition of Langley, the complainant, they were sustained, and the judgment of the county court was reversed and set aside. The plaintiff declining to amend his petition, the same was thereupon dismissed, and he appealed to the supreme court.

T. J. Word, for the appellant. The errors assigned are: 1st. That the court erred in reversing the orders and decrees of the probate court. 2d. That the court erred in dismissing the cause.

This whole case depends on these considerations: 1st. Does an administrator, with the will annexed, occupy the same position as the executors named in the will? and, is he exempt from all accountability to the probate court, in the same manner as the executors are, by the provisions of the will? 2d. Have creditors of the estate, in the hands of the administrator with the will annexed, the right, under the law, to cite the administrator with the will annexed, and require him to make an exhibit, and pay their demands; or, must they cause all the persons entitled under the will, to be cited, and execute a bond for the payment of the debts?

And while the case seems clear to us, we are constrained to say, we can conceive of no case involving more serious consequences. A...