Wells v. Mills

Decision Date01 January 1858
Citation22 Tex. 302
PartiesJ. C. WELLS AND ANOTHER, ADM'RS, v. ROGER Q. MILLS.
CourtTexas Supreme Court
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

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:

“The application of said administrators, coming on to be heard, it is ordered by the court, that said administrators proceed to advertise and sell, at the earliest practicable period, the lands ordered to be sold by the said administrators, at a former term of this court; and, in order that the interest of said estate be fully protected, it is further ordered, that said administrators proceed to advertise, in like manner, any other lands, and to sell such lands as may seem best to the interest of said estate, to an amount sufficient to realize to said estate, the sum of four thousand dollars on said sales, in addition to the amount already sold; that the sale be made at the court house of Navarro county, on a credit of twelve months, the payment of the purchase money to be secured, as required by law; and that the sales be reported to this court, as directed by the statute on the subject. The following lands are designated.” (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 cause again coming on to be heard, and the parties interested appearing, and being heard, the court is satisfied that there is no objection to the confirmation of the sale of the first six tracts; they are therefore confirmed, and the administrators aforesaid are hereby authorized and required to make title to the purchasers of the said six tracts of land, making such warranty as the law authorizes them to make. It is further ordered and decreed that the sale of the seventh and last tract of six hundred and forty acres, granted to B. W. Robertson, and bid off by R. Q. Mills, at seventy-five cents per acre, be annulled, set aside and held for nought.”

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
5 cases
  • The State ex rel. Wann v. Dickson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 16 d2 Junho d2 1908
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • 21 d2 Janeiro d2 1896
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • 21 d2 Janeiro d2 1896
    ...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
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 1 d0 Janeiro d0 1871
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT