Bell v. Still

Texas Supreme Court

Bell v. Still

403 S.W.2d 353, 9 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 399, 1966 Tex. LEXIS 358

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedMay 18, 1966

DocketA-10829

StatusPublished

Cited by23 cases

This text of 403 S.W.2d 353 (Bell v. Still) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. Still, 403 S.W.2d 353, 9 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 399, 1966 Tex. LEXIS 358 (Tex. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

GREENHILL, Justice.

There having been sufficient votes to grant the application for writ of error in this case, it was brought before us for a review of the correctness of the holding of the courts below. The matter is a difficult one because doubts exist as to the wisdom of a policy under which an independent executor, accused of gross mismanagement of an estate, is not subject to removal by the probate court as any other executor or administrator. This, however, is a matter within the control of the Legislature. It is our opinion that the Probate Code did not change the rule previously existing that the probate court did not have this power unless the independent executor, properly appointed and qualified, was required to post bond and could not or would not do so. We do not have here the question as to whether the district court has this power of removal.

*354 The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals sets out the facts and correctly declares the principles of law in this case. 389 S.W.2d 605. That opinion is adopted as the opinion of this Court.

The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is affirmed.

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

GREENHILL, Justice.

There having been sufficient votes to grant the application for writ of error in this case, it was brought before us for a review of the correctness of the holding of the courts below. The matter is a difficult one because doubts exist as to the wisdom of a policy under which an independent executor, accused of gross mismanagement of an estate, is not subject to removal by the probate court as any other executor or administrator. This, however, is a matter within the control of the Legislature. It is our opinion that the Probate Code did not change the rule previously existing that the probate court did not have this power unless the independent executor, properly appointed and qualified, was required to post bond and could not or would not do so. We do not have here the question as to whether the district court has this power of removal.

*354 The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals sets out the facts and correctly declares the principles of law in this case. 389 S.W.2d 605. That opinion is adopted as the opinion of this Court.

The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

403 S.W.2d 353, 9 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 399, 1966 Tex. LEXIS 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-still-tex-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack