Skip to main content
· 12/7/1883

Bradley v. Love

Citations

  • 60 Tex. 472
  • 1883 Tex. LEXIS 360

Syllabus

<p>1. Jurisdiction.— The proceedings of probate courts, in all matters relating to the administration of estates of deceased persons can only be attacked in a collateral proceeding, when the record shows affirmatively that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter, or that its jurisdiction had not attached.</p> <p>2. Same.— But when this is shown, or when it appears, from the record itself, that the court had no jurisdiction of the person (in a case where this is required), the question of jurisdiction may be raised on objection to the record when it is offered in evidence, being a nullity on its face.</p> <p>3. Same — District court — Collateral attack.— Where under the statute the district court acts as a court of probate (the county judge being disqualified), its jurisdiction over the subject matter is neither greater nor less than that of the probate court of the county; so that if, in a probate proceeding before the district court sitting as a court of probate, it appears that its object was to try the title to land, and this is affirmatively shown by the record, its adjudication upon such title is a nullity, and subject to collateral attack.</p> <p>4. Same.— Title to land, cast by descent from the mother to the heirs, it being the separate property of the mother, cannot pass by virtue of an order or judgment of the probate court, rendered in the administration of the estate of the deceased father. Title to such interests can no more pass, by virtue of orders of the probate court, adjudging the land to belong to the father’s estate, than could title to the lands of a stranger.</p> <p>5. Separate property — Jurisdiction — Innocent purchaser. — When the deed made by the father to his daughter and her husband, in the division of his estate, recited in the habendum, clause “ to have and to hold the aforesaid lands unto them, the said David Love and Mary Love, their heirs and assigns, forever,” and purported to be made upon a consideration of §1,000, • it

Judges: App, Com, Watts

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.