Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62. Page: 366
xxii, 836 p., 22 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
366 MAlAYES v. JONES. [Tyler Term,
Opinion of the court.
and for that amount judgment was rendered against the heirs who
had pleaded limitation. Judgment was further rendered against
the other heirs for $1,558, the total amount claimed by the plaintiff,
including as well that which was, as that which was not barred by
limitation; the court, however, directing that upon the payment of
this sum the amount decreed against the two heirs above mentioned
should become fully satisfied. It was further provided in the decree
that the payment of one-eighth of the $787, by Ida Devereux or R.
E. L. Mayes, should release the party paying from any further liability
under the decree; and the payment of one-sixth of the $1,558
by either of the other heirs should be a satisfaction of the judgment
so far as that heir was concerned.
The court, having found that the heirs were in possession of a
tract of land lying in Wilson county, descended from Mrs. Mary A.
Mayes, ordered its sale in satisfaction of the judgment; and having
made provision for the protection of a minor defendant, R. E. L,
Mayes, declared the decree to be a lien upon the above property, and
directed that neither of the defendants should be liable under the
decree beyond the property descended to them from their deceased
ancestor.
It will be seen that the whole amount of the plaintiff's recovery
is $1,558, of which the sum of $196.75 was absolutely adjudged in
the first place against the two heirs who defended the suit. The
other heirs were therefore liable for the balance of the recovery
after the $196.75 had been deducted from it. But the court renderied
judgment against these six heirs for the entire $1,558, or
against each of them for the sum of $259.66. This was clearly
erroneous, and was probably an oversight in making up the decree.
The judgment against them should have been for $1,361.25 in the
aggregate, and against each for the sum of $226.87-.
We think that the court also erred in foreclosing a lien upon the
Wilson county land and in decreeing its sale in satisfaction of the
judgment. Our statute does not give any creditor a lien upon any specific
piece of property of the deceased debtor by reason of its descent
to his heirs. The entire creditors of the deceased have the right to
subject such property to the payment of their debts; and to that
end they, or any one of them, may sue the heirs for the debt, and
obtain judgment to the extent of the property received by the heirs
from their deceased ancestor. The suit is in personamn, and the heir
may show in defense that he has received no assets by descent, and
prevent any recovery whatever against himself, or limit the recovery
to the amount so received. The judgment when recovered is con
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62., book, 1885; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28512/m1/388/: accessed May 1, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .