Baker v. Rust

Citations

• 37 Tex. 242

Syllabus

<p>1. B., a physician, presented to the administrators of H., deceased, an account for medical services rendered to Mrs. H., subsequent to the death of her husband. The account was allowed by the administrators, and the allowance approved by the probate judge, and a large portion of the account actually paid. Subsequently the administrators filed a petition in the District Court to have the allowance set aside. The petition contained general allegations of fraud and mistake of law and fact, but failed to set out facts from which either fraud or mistake could be inferred. Held, that the general and indefinite allegations of fraud and mistake, without the facts from which either could be inferred, gave the court no jurisdiction of the case, and it therefore erred in interfering with the allowance of the probate court.</p> <p>2. The allowance by the probate court of an account against the estate of a deceased person is a quasi judgment, and cannot be collaterally impeached. Nor can it be impeached by the administrators for fraud ol mistake. (Eccles v. Daniels, 16 Texas, 139, cited by the court.)</p> <p>3. An account for medical services rendered to a widow is not a charge against her deceased husband’s estate ; but she is herself a preferred creditor of the estate to the extent of a year’s maintenance, and such other allowances as the law gives her, and one who furnishes her with necessaries, and thus becomes her Txma fide creditor, will, on her death, be substituted to her rights against the estate of her deceased husband.</p> <p>4. An allowance of a medical account by the probate court will not be set aside by this court on account of its magnitude, in the absence of any facts going to show that the account was fraudulent or extortionate.</p>