Anderson v. Steddum

Texas Commission of Appeals

Anderson v. Steddum

222 S.W. 1090, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 690

CourtTexas Commission of Appeals

DecidedJune 26, 1920

DocketNo. 142-3072

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 S.W. 1090 (Anderson v. Steddum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Commission of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Steddum, 222 S.W. 1090, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 690 (Tex. Super. Ct. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

KITTRÉLL, J.

This cause is reported in 194 S. W. 1132. The writ was granted by the Committee of Judges. It involves the question whether pension money received by a guardian and expended in her capacity as such is “estate” of the ward within the meaning of the term “estate” as used in article 4131, V. S. R. S. The Court of Civil Appeals held that it is, and that, the guardian having expended the money without having first procured such order as is by said article 4131 required to be obtained before the expenditure was made, the guardian was not entitled to credit for such expenditure in the settlement of her final account.

The Supreme Court has indicated to us that in its opinion the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals was correct and should be affirmed. In view of that opinion, it is recommended that the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals be affirmed.

PHILLIPS, C. J. We approve the judgment recommended in this case.'

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KITTRÉLL, J.

This cause is reported in 194 S. W. 1132. The writ was granted by the Committee of Judges. It involves the question whether pension money received by a guardian and expended in her capacity as such is “estate” of the ward within the meaning of the term “estate” as used in article 4131, V. S. R. S. The Court of Civil Appeals held that it is, and that, the guardian having expended the money without having first procured such order as is by said article 4131 required to be obtained before the expenditure was made, the guardian was not entitled to credit for such expenditure in the settlement of her final account.

The Supreme Court has indicated to us that in its opinion the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals was correct and should be affirmed. In view of that opinion, it is recommended that the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals be affirmed.

PHILLIPS, C. J. We approve the judgment recommended in this case.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 S.W. 1090, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-steddum-texcommnapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack