Young v. Gray

• Decision Date: 18 December 1883
• Docket Number: Case No. 1518.
• Citation: 60 Tex. 541
• Parties: SAMUEL YOUNG ET ALS. v. POLLY GRAY ET ALS.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

60 Tex. 541

SAMUEL YOUNG ET ALS.

v.POLLY GRAY ET ALS.

Case No. 1518.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Dec. 18, 1883.

APPEAL from Rusk. Tried below before the Hon. A. J. Booty.

The appellants brought this suit by a bill of review to have the county court revise and correct its decree rendered, distributing the estate of Ellen V. Gray, deceased, and discharging Thos. J. Lacy, guardian of the estate. Ellen Gray died about 1879, and the decree was rendered in 1880. Appellants alleged that Ellen Gray died intestate, leaving neither father, mother, brother, sister, husband nor descendants surviving her. Polly Gray, one of the appellees, was the mother of the appellants and the grandmother of Ellen Gray; Wm. Gray, the husband of Polly Gray, father of the appellants and grandfather of Ellen, died in 1874. The other appellees were of kin to Ellen on her mother's side. In the distribution of the estate the court overlooked the appellants and gave the whole of the estate, one-half to Polly Gray, the other half to the other appellees; giving the appellants nothing. The appellants were not present at the time, but as soon as they learned of the manner in which the estate of Ellen Gray had been distributed, they filed their bill of review for the purpose above stated, and directed the attention of the court particularly to the action of Thos. J. Lacy, the guardian of Ellen Gray, and asked that a more complete exhibit of the estate be made by him; they alleging that the same had not been fully accounted for and distributed. The appellees filed their plea to the jurisdiction of the county court, which was sustained, and then the cause was appealed to the district court, where the motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction was again sustained. The appellants then prosecuted their appeal to this court.

J. Harvey Turner, for appellant, cited: Veal v. Fortson, 57 Tex., 482;Ramirez v. McClane, 50 Tex., 599;Janson v. Jacobs, 44 Tex., 575;Jones' Heirs v. Barnett's Heirs, 30 Tex., 637; R. S., arts. 1645, 2707, 2708, 2717, 2682-2694; Pasch. Dig., art. 5791.

Jas. H. Jones and Geo. H. Gould, for appellees, cited: Timmon v. Bonner, 58 Tex., 554;McKinney v. Abbott, 49 Tex., 375; R. S., arts. 2200, 2201.

WEST, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

The question presented for our consideration, in this case, in relation to the action of the county court of Rusk county in the matter of the final partition and distribution of the deceased minor's estate, in a proceeding there instituted for that purpose, against the guardian, is not free from difficulty. It has been very carefully inquired into, and all authorities accessible to us bearing on the subject have been examined.

After much deliberation we have reached the conclusion that in a suit of this kind, in the county court, against the guardian after the death of his ward, that the county court has no power, in such a character of proceeding, to make by its decree a final partition and distribution of the estate of such deceased ward among those who claim to be by law entitled to its enjoyment. Nor is there any such action contemplated or provided for in the statutes regulating the relation of guardian and ward.

In the case of a deceased person, where a regular administration, as provided by the statute, is had on the estate, the county court has, both by the express terms of the constitution (Const., art. 5, sec. 16), and by statute, power and jurisdiction to make the final settlement, partition and distribution of the estate of such deceased person. R. S., art. 2097.

This power, in relation to the estates of deceased persons, existed and was exercised at an early day, under the old probate acts of 1840 and 1846. Hart. Dig., arts. 1031 and 1106. It was also exercised over the estates of deceased persons, under the subsequent probate law of 1848. Hart. Dig., art. 1196; Pasch. Dig., vol. 1, art. 1348.

The case of Veal v. Fortson, 57 Tex., 486, has been referred to in argument on this subject, but the point now in question was not before the court in that case, and was not considered by it, nor is there any matter here decided, or passed on, that is not in entire harmony with that case and the cases there cited.

The case of Berry v. Young, 15 Tex., 370, was an exceptional case, and was under a different system, and the question here decided was not then before the court or discussed.

If the only question raised by the appellants in their bill of review in this case had been that of the reopening and revising of the action of the county court in the matter of the partition and distribution of the estate of the deceased ward, we would sustain the action of the district court in entirely dismissing the appeal; regarding, as we do, the action of the county court in that behalf as being without authority of law, and all its proceedings in entering the final decree, making the partition and distribution in question as without effect.

The proper conclusion in such cases, under the statute, seems to be that, when the ward dies, the duties of the guardian are at an end, except, alone, for the purposes of paying claims theretofore approved, or making his final account, and obtaining as soon as he can, for his protection in the future, an order of final settlement and discharge. Timmons v. Bonner, 58 Tex., 554.

The estate of the deceased ward should, like the estate of any other deceased person, be turned over as soon as possible, by the guardian, to the administrator or such other person or persons as by law may be determined to be entitled to it. R. S.,...