Sorsby v. Russ
Decision Date | 30 January 1941 |
Docket Number | No. 11075.,11075. |
Citation | 147 S.W.2d 876 |
Parties | SORSBY et al. v. RUSS. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Austin County; M. C. Jeffrey, Judge.
Proceeding between E. D. Sorsby and another and Mrs. Lulie Russ. From so much of the district court's judgment, which was entered in proceedings wherein Mabel Guthrie Russ sought to have reviewed a probate court's order refusing to probate a will, as taxed against Mabel Guthrie Russ and E. D. Sorsby and another, who were sureties of Mabel Guthrie Russ upon a certiorari bond, costs which accrued in the proceedings subsequent to the resignation of Mabel Guthrie Russ as the nominated independent executrix in the will, E. D. Sorsby and another appeal.
Reversed and judgment directed in favor of E. D. Sorsby and another in accordance with opinion.
Wm. H. Betts, of Hempstead, for appellants.
Marvin Sprain, of Bellville, Richard Spinn, of Brenham, and C. D. Duncan and J. Lee Dittert, both of Bellville, for appellee.
This appeal by E. D. Sorsby and H. D. Schwarz, who were the sureties of Mabel Guthrie Russ upon a certiorari bond, whereby she sought in the district court of Austin County to have reviewed an order of the probate court of such county refusing to probate the will of Kinch Russ, deceased, is from only so much of the district court's judgment on that appeal (after it had likewise refused the probate of such will) as further taxed the costs of such proceeding against their principal on such bond, Mabel Guthrie Russ, and themselves, as accrued subsequent to her resignation as the nominated independent executrix in that will.
The same court that rendered this appealed-from judgment on January 9 of 1940, had theretofore, on September 26 of 1939, accepted the resignation of Mabel Guthrie Russ as such executrix and decreed that "The said Mabel Guthrie Russ is hereby dismissed and discharged as and from being a party to the above entitled and numbered cause."
In view of such dismissal of their principal at that time as a party to the proceedings, appellants contend that this part of the court's judgment notwithstanding, providing that all costs therein adjudged against Mabel Guthrie Russ be "likewise adjudged against H. D. Schwarz and E. D. Sorsby, as Sureties, * * * but as to said Sureties, there shall be no recovery of costs beyond the penal sum of said Bond, and they are herein adjudged to pay whatever costs that may have incurred incident to such Bond in said Cause No. 7315 and as consolidated with Cause No. 7299, after its consolidation", was improper and beyond the court's power; they present in this court these among other assignments of error against the court's action:
These positions are supported, seriatim, under the same numbers, by citation of these authorities:
(1) Article 2182, R.C.S.; 15 Tex.Jur., 265, Section 24; 41 Tex.Jur., 574, Section 94; 18 Corpus Juris, 1170; 9 R.C.L., 199, Section 13.
(2) 18 C.J., 1171, Section 63; 41 Tex. Jur., 594, Section 94; 15 Tex.Jur. 265, Section 24; Watts v. Overstreet, 78 Tex. 571, 14 S.W. 704; McKibban v. Scott, 131 Tex. 182, 114 S.W.2d 213, 115 A.L.R. 1421; Sharp v. Hall, Tex.Civ.App., 49 S.W.2d 523, 525; Rankin v. Rankin, Tex.Civ.App., 134 S.W. 392; Bridges v. Continental Southland Savings & Loan Association, Tex.Civ.App., 86 S.W.2d 659, 661, error refused; Keyser v. Meuseback, 77 Tex. 64, 13 S.W. 967; Davis v. Wichita State Bank & Trust Co., Tex.Civ.App., 286 S.W. 584, 589.
(4) 41 Tex.Jur. 574, Section 94; 41 Tex.Jur., 578, Section 96; 14 Amer.Jur., 35, Section 38.
(5) 41 Tex.Jur., 574, Section 94; 11 Tex.Jur., 246, Section 12; Capt et al. v. Stubbs et al., 68 Tex. 222, 48 S.W. 467; Vogt v. Bexar County, 91 Tex. 285, 286 43 S.W. 14; Barnes v. Lightfoot, 26 Tex. Civ.App. 113, 62 S.W. 564; Askey v. Williams, 74 Tex. 294, 11 S.W. 1101, 5 L.R.A. 176.
(6) 11 Tex.Jur., 291, Section 39.
(7) Article 199, Section 22, R.C.S. (as amended), Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 199 subd. 22; 11 Tex.Jur., 306-7, Section 46; Waggoner v. Davis, Tex.Civ.App., 261 S. W. 482, 484; Randall v. Collins, 52 Tex. 435; Hall v. Reese's Heirs, 26 Tex.Civ. App. 395, 64 S.W. 687; Collins v. Hines, Tex.Civ.App., 100 S.W. 359.
It is determined that these contentions, to the extent of holding the appellants...
To continue reading
Request your trial