Martin v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 11 February 1887
• Citation: 3 S.W. 550
• Parties: MARTIN and others <I>v.</I> ROBINSON and others.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 550

3 S.W. 550

MARTIN and others

v. ROBINSON and others.

Supreme Court of Texas.

February 11, 1887.

Appeal from Houston county.

J. R. Burnett, for appellants. H. G. Roberson, for appellees.

STAYTON, J.

On May 11, 1867, the following application for letters of administration was filed in the probate court for Houston county:

"The State of Texas, Houston County.

"To Hon. J. M. Odell, Chief Justice of said County: John S. Martin, who resides in said county, would respectfully represent to your honor that James Carter, formerly of said state, departed this life at Corpus Christi some time in the year 1852, without leaving any will so far as known to petitioner. And, further, petitioner shows that there has never been any administration on the estate of said Carter, deceased, and that the principal part of the estate of said Carter is situated in said county, to-wit, 1,476 acres of land, the head-right of said Carter. And, further, petitioner shows that his wife, Eliza L. Martin, is the niece of said Carter, deceased, and is the next of kin, and the oldest heir at law of said Carter, deceased. The premises considered, the petitioner prays that the usual notice be given to the next term of the county court pertaining to estates in and for said county of Houston, and for an order appointing petitioner administrator of the estate of said Carter, deceased, and for such other orders as may be necessary and proper, petitioner will ever pray," etc.

On May 27, 1867, the applicant was appointed administrator, the amount of his bond fixed, and appraisers appointed. On the next day Martin executed the bond required and qualified, and on the day after this an inventory and appraisement, showing only the land named in the application, was filed, and these were received and directed to be recorded. On September 24, 1867, an additional inventory was filed, showing that the estate owned one-third of a league of land in Kauffman county, another tract of like size in Angelina county, and five leagues of land in Nueces county, title to which was stated to be doubtful. These lands were appraised by persons appointed by the court, and on October 30, 1867, the additional inventory and appraisement were approved and directed to be recorded; the land in Nueces county being appraised at five dollars.

The following claims, after having been duly authenticated, were allowed by the administrator, and approved by the county judge on February 6, 1868: Claims proved by Mrs. Todd are as follows: Copies of two notes executed by James Carter, one for $2,000, due January 1, 1853, the other for $1,000, due January 1, 1854, both dated Rusk, Texas, December 8, 1852, and payable to Jackson Todd or bearer, with 10 per cent. interest from date. These claims were duly authenticated by Mrs. Todd, the affidavits also stating that the originals had been stolen from Jackson Todd on February 22, 1856. Also an original account of W. G. Johnson for $59.47, for goods sold to Carter in 1852, at Corpus Christi, which account appeared by the creditor's receipt to have been paid by Jackson Todd June 2, 1853. Also an original account of Dr. P. N. Luckett for $120 for medicines, etc., the last item being, "April 20, 1853, for visit, prescription, and medicine," and which is indorsed paid by Todd, May 17, 1853. Also original note of James Carter, dated Clinton, Louisiana, March 22, 1847, for $195, payable 30 days after date, to Lucy Morgan or bearer, with 8 per cent. interest from date, indorsed, "Sold this note to J. Todd, no recourse back on me, this tenth of January, 1848. [Signed] LUCY MORGAN;" also indorsed, "Received on this note $20, this tenth of February, 1852. [Signed] J. TODD." Mrs. Todd was the widow of Jackson Todd, who died in the year 1856; and there is some evidence that she claimed that the two notes first named were given by Carter for negroes given to her by her father.

The claims presented by Mrs. Todd were first sworn to by her before a justice of the peace on October 25, 1867, and they were allowed by the administrator a few days afterwards, upon which they were again sworn to before a county judge, and on February 6, 1868, they were reallowed by the administrator, and approved by county judge. On July 30, 1867, the administrator filed an application to sell the land in Houston county to pay expenses of administration, and a sale was made and reported; but, on October 31, 1867, the sale was disapproved, and a resale ordered. On October 29, 1867, the administrator filed an application, under oath, to sell the lands in Kauffman and Angelina counties, representing in his application that claims against the estate amounting to over $3,250 had been presented to him, and that a sale was necessary to pay debts, and on the next day the court granted the application to sell. The three tracts were sold on the first Tuesday in January, 1868, and Mrs. Todd became the purchaser of all the tracts at $600 each. The return of sales, sworn to, was filed on February 6, 1868, and on the twenty-fourth of the same month the court approved them, and ordered deed made to the purchaser. The administrator, on April 10, 1868, made a deed to Mrs. Todd, fully reciting the applications to sell, the orders of sale, and order of court confirming the sale, and reciting the payment of the purchase money. This deed was duly acknowledged and recorded in Houston county, October 29, 1869, and in Kauffman county, November 29, 1869. The administrator filed his final account in the district court on February 7, 1872, and notice thereof was soon after given; but it does not appear that any action was taken thereon and in the original petition filed in this case it was alleged that the administration had not been closed. The appellants claim through conveyances made by Mrs. Todd.

This action was brought by some of the heirs of James Carter, on July 22, 1878, and the relief which they seek is thus stated in the prayers to their petition: "(1) That the pretended administration aforesaid, and the orders made therein affecting the title of plaintiffs to said land, and the sales of said lands therein, and the deeds made by the administrator, be set aside and held for naught, because of the want of jurisdiction of the county court of Houston county to grant such administration, and to make such orders, and to pass the title to said lands. (2) That in case relief be not granted on the grounds above prayed for, that the order of sale and sales and deeds made by said Martin be set aside, because of the fraud by which they were procured and executed. (3) That in case relief on either of the above grounds be denied, the claims asserted by the several defendants under such administration be removed as clouds on plaintiffs' title, and that the title to said lands be decreed to be in the heirs of said James Carter, and that plaintiffs be placed by the decree and process of the court in the possession and enjoyment of said lands. They also pray for costs and general relief in the premises."

As ground for the relief sought, the petition alleges that James Carter had his domicile in Nueces county at the time of his death, and that his principal estate was there situated; that the averment of nearest relationship of Martin's wife to Carter was untrue; that Carter owed no debts, and that there was no necessity for administration; that administration was taken out for the fraudulent purpose of acquiring title to the land; that the claims presented against the estate were fictitious; but, if once valid, were barred by the statutes of limitations before administration was granted; that Martin and Mrs. Todd fraudulently procured the orders of sale and confirmation; and that of all these things the plaintiffs had no knowledge until the year 1877. The petition was very full and specific upon all these matters. The most, if not all, of the defendants claiming the land in Kauffman county and Van Zandt and in Angelina counties were alleged to be residents of counties other than Houston.

The main purpose of the plaintiffs was to establish their title, and to obtain possession of three tracts of land situated in different counties. Their right is based on inheritance from James Carter, and the denial that the title thus vesting had been divested, through sales made by Martin, as administrator of the estate of Carter, in pursuance of orders of the probate court for Houston county. If the administration in that county was void, the sales made under it interposed no obstacle to a recovery; but, if such was not its character, it became necessary for the plaintiffs to have the sales in effect set aside by some appropriate proceeding before they could recover the land. If the administration was void, there can be no doubt of the power of the district court so to declare it, and to give the relief sought in so far as it had jurisdiction over the several defendants; but, if the administration was not void, and the orders of sale, sales, confirmation of sales and deed made by the administrator were only voidable, then the question arises whether the district court had jurisdiction to grant the relief asked in the second prayer.

These questions will be examined. Was it shown that the administration and proceedings under it were void? That the county court for Nueces county was a court of record of general jurisdiction over all matters relating to the administration of the estates of deceased persons, is not an open question. Guilford v. Love, 49 Tex. 716; Giddings v. Steele, 28 Tex. 750; Lynch v. Baxter, 4 Tex. 431; Murchison v. White, 54 Tex. 83. When a court of record, having such jurisdiction, has assumed to exercise it in a given case, all presumptions are in favor of the validity of its proceedings; and if the record of such a court shows that the steps necessary to clothe it with power to act in the given case were taken, or if the record be silent upon this subject, then its judgment, order, or...