Love v. Keowne

Citations

• 58 Tex. 191
• 1882 Tex. LEXIS 233

Syllabus

<p>1. Action—Multieabiousness—Parties.— In an action by heirs against the administrators on the estate of the ancestor and their sureties, and the sureties on a second bond executed under art. 1292, Pasch. Dig., it was alleged that a large sum of money, the amount not being known, was in the hands of the administrators when the second bond was executed; that large funds of the estate were invested in railroad stock by one administrator while the first bond was in force, in connection with sureties on the second bond, before the same was executed, and in their own name, which were held as collaterals to indemnify the second securities from loss on their suretyship; that all the papers of the estate were lost, and though the amounts wrongfully converted under each of the two bonds could not be stated, about $17,000 was converted under each bond. They prayed that the amounts of money wrongfully converted, for which each set of sureties were liaable, might be ascertained, and for judgment for the railroad stock against the second set of securities, for an account, discovery and general relief. Held,</p> <p>(1) There was no misjoinder of parties or of causes of action.</p> <p>(2) A joinder of both sets of securities as defendants in one action was not only proper for the protection of those interested in the estate, but also for the adjusting of equities existing among the sureties themselves.</p> <p>(3) The joinder was proper to avoid a multiplicity of suits.</p> <p>(4) The second set of securities were connected with the subject matter of the suit before their liability as sureties began, on account of their conversion of the assets of the estate; and also afterwards, in the wrongful appropriation of a trust fund, which not only the heirs may follow, but which the sureties on the first bond may follow for their own protection in adjusting liabilities between the two sets of sureties.</p> <p>(5) A bill of discovery, though unknown to our practice in Texas, eo nomine, is