Wilson v. Kyle's Executors

Citations

• 35 Tex. 559

Syllabus

<p>1. Suit for a money demand was brought upon a statutory bond for the partition of an intestate’s estate. One of the sureties on the bond was deceased, and the suit was brought against his executors (and other defendants) in the county where his estate was being administered by them. They pleaded that another suit upon the same demand had been brought by the plaintiff in an adjoining county, where some of the defendants lived, and that it was still pending there; wherefore, they alleged that the court wherein the present suit was brought had no jurisdictiou. Meld, that the plaintiff’s demurrer to this plea should have been sustained. The district court of the county where the suit was brought not only had jurisdiction, but it seems had exclusive jurisdiction as against the executors of the deceased surety.</p> <p>2. The primary object of Article 1372, Paschal’s Digest, allowing partition of an estate upon execution of a bond as therein required, was to provide a speedy mode of settling estates, and at the same time to transfer the responsibility of the debts from the estate to the obligors on the bond ; and they, by the execution of the bond, become primarily liable for the debts of the estate.</p> <p>3. In a suit on a partition bond by a creditor of the estate, it is immaterial whether the estate has been settled up or not.</p>