McDonald v. Alford

Citations

• 32 Tex. 35

Syllabus

<p>1— An administrator de bonis non can not maintain an action in the District Court to vacate a decree obtained by his predecessor in the Probate Court.</p> <p>2— The only suit maintainable by an administrator de bonis non against his predecessor is a suit on the bond of the latter, for property or assets of the estate not accounted for by him.</p> <p>S—An administrator de bonis non is not a person “interested in the estate” of his intestate within the meaning of Article 1883, Paschal’s Digest, which authorized persons so “ interested” to institute suit in the District Court to correct accounts of executors or administrators settled in,the Probate Court.</p> <p>4— The rulings to the same effect in Murphy v. Menard, 11th Texas, 678, cited and approved.</p> <p>5— In a suit in the District Court, under Article 1883, there can be no other plaintiffs than the persons “interested in the estate;” no other subject matter than the matters or things adjudicated by the Probate Court; and no other defendants than the former administrator or his heirs.</p> <p>6— It is not competent for an administrator de bonis non, nor even for parties “interested in the estate,” to combine in one suit an action against the former administrator, to set aside an order obtained by him, with an action against a third party to recover land conveyed under such order.</p> <p>7— The land in controversy in this suit lay in a different county from that in which the suit was brought; but that feature seems of no significance so far as the foregoing rulings are concerned.</p> <p>8— By Article 1433, Paschal’s Digest, suits for the recovery of land must be instituted in the county where the land, or some part of it, is situated.</p>