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: 250
This book is part of the collection entitled: Texas Reports and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
250 LUTMPIKpi V. SMITH. [Tyler Term,
Opinion of the court.
under it, in order that the estate might be turned over to them after the executor
had discharged his trust. When such a will does provide for the distribution
of the entire estate, and also a means for its partition, the county
court has no jurisdiction to pass upon the propriety of its administration
by the executor, to allow him extra compensation for his services, or to discharge
him from further liability.
ERROR from Anderson. Tried below before the lon. James I
Perkins.
T. J. Williams, for plaintiff in error.
P. A. Reeves and Greenwood & Gooch, for defendants in error.
STAYTON, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.--Wilson Lumpkin was by the will
of John Murchison, deceased, appointed the executor of his will,
which provided that his estate should be administered without the
control of the probate courts.
Lumpkin qualified, and so administered the estate in accordance
with the will.
After having had charge of the estate for about thirteen years,
on June 20, 1883, the executor filed in the county court for Anderson
county what purports to be his final account, in which he stated
that the four children of John Murchison made legatees by his will
had died, and that the two minor children of one of them was entitled
by inheritance to the estate not disposed of. The name and
residence of the two minor children were given, and there was a
prayer for citation to their guardian, who was named. The report
contains the following statement: " This executor is also advised
and believes the powers and duties conferred on him as executor by
said will are determined and ended except as to filing a report of
his management of said estate and a settlement with the legal heirs
thereof, and his discharge. He therefore comes into court and prays
that this, his said report and final settlement, by the court be heard,
that said Smith, guardian, be cited according to law, and this executor
be discharged from his trust."
There was a full statement of the administration of the estate,
which showed that there was no personal property on hand of any
value.
Under the provisions of the will of Murchison and the facts
stated by the executor, all of the estate in his hands would belong
to the two minor children before referred to, except such part thereof
as one of the legatees may have conveyed in his life-time to Geo.
A. Wright, who became a party to this proceeding.
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/m1/272/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .