Wells v. Mills
Decision Date | 01 January 1858 |
Citation | 22 Tex. 302 |
Parties | J. C. WELLS AND ANOTHER, ADM'RS, v. ROGER Q. MILLS. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
The authority of an administrator, under an order of the county court, to sell sufficient lands of his decedent to realize a specific sum of money, is exhausted when that object has been accomplished; and he cannot proceed, under such order, to sell other lands, after the sales have produced the required amount.
See this case, for circumstances which justified the court, in refusing to confirm a sale made by the administrator, under an order to sell sufficient land to realize four thousand dollars.
Whether the judgment of the chief justice of the county court, in reference to the confirmation of sales of real estate, belonging to the estates of deceased persons, determining whether they have been fairly made, and in conformity with law, is the subject of revision, is discussed in this opinion. That question is not decided; but, it seems, that the exercise of such discretion (Hart. Dig. art. 1176) cannot be the subject of revision.
APPEAL from Navarro. Tried below before the Hon. Charles A. Frazer.
This case originated in the county court. The record showed that at the February term, 1857, the appellants, as administrators of the estate of David R. Mitchell, deceased, filed their petition in the said court, praying for an order to sell lands of the estate, to make up the amount required for the payment of the demands against it. The order made upon the application was as follows:
(Here followed a description of seventeen tracts of land, of various sizes, and in several counties.)
At the May term, 1857, one of the appellants made his return of the sales made by him, in pursuance of the order, which was ordered to be recorded. This return showed a sale of seven of the specified tracts; and the aggregate amount of sales was four thousand five hundred and seventy dollars and eighty cents. The administrators aforesaid, objected to the confirmation of the sale of the last tract sold at the said sale. Upon which objection the court made the following order:
The return of sales, showed that the above named tract, of six hundred and forty acres, granted to B. M. Robertson, and last named on the list, was bid off by R. Q. Mills, at seventy-five cents per acre, making four hundred and eighty dollars; and that the sales of the other tracts (which were confirmed) amounted...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The State ex rel. Wann v. Dickson
... ... Newell v. West, 13 Blatch. 114; Wynns v ... Alexander, 2 Dev. & Bat. Eq. 58; Cannon v ... Jenkins, 1 Dev. Eq. 427; Wells v. Mills, 22 ... Tex. 302; Morton v. Johnston, 124 Mich. 563; ... Lappin v. Munford, 14 Kan. 9; Weyer v ... Bank, 57 Ind. 198; Railroad ... ...
-
Hubermann v. Evans
... ... 7); ... and others say it is not essential that the property be ... particularly described in a petition for its sale ( Wells ... v. Mills , 22 Tex. 302; Wells v. Polk , 36 Tex ... 120; Davis v. Touchstone , 45 Tex. 490; Bryan v ... [65 N.W. 1048] ... 23 Kan. 95); ... ...
-
Huberman v. Evans
...Shackelford, 72 Ala. 7. And others say it is not essential that the property be particularly described in a petition for its sale. Wells v. Mills, 22 Tex. 302;Wells v. Polk, 36 Tex. 121;Davis v. Touchstone, 45 Tex. 491;Bryan v. Bauder, 23 Kan. 95. And there is another line of cases which ho......
-
Trousdale v. J. Trousdale's Ex'rs
...that the sale and confirmation must be set aside. The order of confirmation cures every such irregularity in the return. Wells v. Mills, 22 Tex. 302; Yerby v. Hill, 16 Tex. 376; Brown v. Christie, 27 Tex. 73; note b, p. 104, and note b, p. 105, Sayles, Probate Laws; Alexander v. Maverick, 1......