Stephens v. Dennis
Decision Date | 18 May 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 1271.,1271. |
Citation | 72 S.W.2d 630 |
Parties | STEPHENS v. DENNIS et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Shackelford County; M. S. Long, Judge.
Action by W. H. Stephens against Lee Dennis and others, in which named defendant and others presented a cross-action. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and rendered in favor of plaintiff as against defendants Lee Dennis, W. T. Dennis, and Helen Taylor, and in other respects judgment to remain undisturbed.
G. B. King, of Albany, and J. B. Dibrell, Jr., of Coleman, for appellant.
Homer T. Bouldin, of Albany, and Bouldin & Bouldin, of Mineral Wells, for appellees.
W. H. Stephens instituted this suit in trespass to try title against Lee Dennis, John S. Dennis, W. T. Dennis, Julia E. Gill, and husband, D. G. Gill, Frank Huskins, Howard N. Huskins, Helen Taylor, and husband, Auverne Taylor, Gracie Lee Ellis, Sam Ellis, Jr., Sam Ellis individually and as guardian of the person and estate of Gracie Lee Ellis and Sam Ellis, Jr., to recover 246 acres of land out of section 45, Lunatic Asylum lands, Shackelford county, Tex. Defendants Lee Dennis, W. T. Dennis, Helen Taylor, and her husband, Auverne Taylor, answered by general demurrer, general denial, and presented a cross-action in trespass to try title to recover the identical lands from the plaintiff, W. H. Stephens. The cause was tried before the court without a jury, and the judgment, upon proper pleadings, disposed of each of the defendants and his alleged interests in the subject-matter of the litigation, and the court awarded to Lee Dennis, W. T. Dennis, and Helen Taylor a judgment for the title and possession of the land in controversy, together with the cancellation of the deed whereby the executor of the estate of Amanda Dennis had conveyed the same to the plaintiff, W. H. Stephens. From the judgment in favor of the three last named parties, W. H. Stephens prosecutes this appeal.
The 246 acres of land were conveyed to W. H. Stephens in the satisfaction of a deficiency judgment against the estate of the deceased. The indebtedness was secured by a lien on the land and the judgment foreclosed the same. Amanda Dennis is the common source of title. She died February 8, 1929. Dosh Elen Cruse, the invalid sister hereinafter spoken of, died June 22, 1929. This 246 acres was nonexempt property, and the last remaining asset of the estate. It was conveyed in satisfaction of an indebtedness that remained after the other portions of the estate had been devoted to the satisfaction of the debts of the deceased. Appellees are the children and devisees of the deceased. They contend that the deed executed by Price, the executor, to Stephens conveying the said tract of land is void, because the will of the deceased provided that the same should not be sold until after the death of Lee Dennis, and, because that instrument further provided that when the "home place" was sold, etc., for the payment of debts, said 246 acres of land should be turned over to Lee Dennis to be controlled and managed by him, and to be no longer in the control of the executor.
Omitting the formal parts and the codicil as immaterial to the questions raised, the will of the deceased is to the tenor following:
No provision of the foregoing will has ever been annulled, or set aside by any proceeding in the probate court of Shackelford county, Tex.
The first question presented is: Does the will by its terms constitute Dodd Price independent executor of the estate of the deceased? We think this question must be answered in the affirmative. The language of the will withdraws the estate from the control of the probate court. That provision of the will is in substance the same as article 3436, R. S. 1925, granting such power to one capable of making a will and desirous of avoiding the cost and delay incident to the regular administration through the courts.
True, the will provided that the executor execute a $5,000 bond, but this fact constituted no restriction on the powers granted the executor. Neither does it evidence any intention on the part of the testatrix to grant the probate court supervision over the acts of the executor in the administration of the estate. Epperson v. Reeves et al., 35 Tex. Civ. App. 167, 79 S. W. 845 (writ refused). The direction in a will that no bond be required of the executor does not necessarily withdraw the estate from the control of the probate court. Smithwick v. Kelly, 79 Tex. 564, 15 S. W. 486; Lewis v. Nichols, 38 Tex. 54. The converse, as in the instant case, must...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Gilchrist's Estate
... ... 414; Thatcher v. Lewis, (Mo.) 76 S.W.2d 677; ... Cronan v. Cronan, (Mass.) 190 N.E. 721; Stephens ... v. Dennis, 72 S.W.2d 630; Kosa v. Boucek, ... (Kan.) 42 P.2d 596; Livingston v. Ward, (N. Y.) ... 159 N.E. 875; Johnson v. Haldane, 124 ... ...
-
Ottenhouse v. Abernathy
...Hypoteek Bank of Amsterdam, Holland (Tex.Civ.App.) 221 S.W. 1004; Pepper v. Walling (Tex.Civ.App.) 195 S.W. 892; Stephens v. Dennis (Tex. Civ.App.) 72 S.W.2d 630. We have considered the above assignments of appellant over the objection on the part of appellee that such pleas were waived, th......
-
Wood v. Paulus, 878
...be interpreted as meaning something, and where possible, each provision will be harmonized with all other provisions. Stephens v. Dennis, 72 S.W.2d 630 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1934, writ ref'd). The words in each paragraph of a will should be given such force and effect so as to harmonize w......
-
Laney v. Cline
...over them so long as they faithfully discharge the trust. See, also, Wimberly et al. v. Bailey et al., 58 Tex. 222; Stephens v. Dennis et al., Tex.Civ.App., 72 S.W.2d 630. The fact that the testators in the joint will designate each other as survivor rather than executor or executrix would ......