Blair v. Gay

Citations

• 33 Tex. 157

Syllabus

<p>1. Administrators of a deceased lunatic obtained in the probate court (as organized in 1866) a decree for money against a former guardian oí the lunatic’s property ; and afterwards, but within two years, they brought, suit in the district court on the guardian's bond to recover the amount of the decree from the guardian and his sureties. - The defendants answered that the decree was rendered without any appearance or answer by the guardian ; that the guardian was not indebted to the estate; that the decree was based on Confederate money collected by the guardian from an insolvent debtor of the lunatic; and that the guardian was entitled to credits not allowed him in the decree ; and they filed a transcript-of the proceedings of the probate court, and prayed that its decree be revised and corrected. Held, that tips line of defense was competent, the two years allowed by Article 3922, Paschal’s Digest, for the revision by the district court of the probate court’s decree being unexpired, and it being immaterial in what manner the appearance of the parties was obtained in the district court.</p> <p>2. A policy pervades our whole system of jurisprudence, which requires parties to settle all their controversies in a single suit, if practicable. (By Morrill, Chief Justice, citing Haggerty v. Scott, 10 Texas, 525 ; Ponton v. Bellows, 22 Texas, 681; and Henderson v. Morrill, 12 Texas, 3.)</p> <p>3. The defense above indicated was a direet and not a mere collateral attack upon the decree of the probaie court. (By Denison, Justice.)</p> <p>4. The Constitution cf 1868 and Article 3922, Paschal’s Digest, conferred on ■ the district court a general control and original as well as appellate jurisdiction over all matters for settling the accounts of guardians, etc.; and it was immaterial in wliat manner, and whether by writ or otherwise, a transcript of a probate court’s proceedings in such a matter was brought beiore a district court. ■ (By Denison, Justice.)</p>