English's Adm'r v. Murray

13 Tex. 366
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1855
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 13 Tex. 366 (English's Adm'r v. Murray) 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
English's Adm'r v. Murray, 13 Tex. 366 (Tex. 1855).

Opinion

Hemphill, Ch. J.

Letters of administration are conclusive that the person therein appointed administrator is such. (2 Phillips, p. 29.) But the decree granting letters is one which does not arise out of an adverse suit between parties, and in the language of the books there is no reason for allowing it any further effect than that of establishing the rights and liabilities incident to the estate and legal character of the grantee as administrator. Consequently the letters are not legitimate proof of the death of the person upon whose estate they are granted. (2 Phillips, p. 31.) It is said they are not prima facie evidence, even in favor of a person who sues as administrator of the deceased. (1 Wms. Ex’ors. p. 374; 1 Russell Chan. p. 307.) The direct contrary of this was held, however, in Newman v. Jenkins, 10 Pickering, 515. The Court was of opinion that the fact of the death must have been determined in the Probate Court before the grant, and the administrator could not be required to make proof of the fact, unless the defendant had filed a plea in abatement. Whatever may be the correct rule, where the suit is brought by an administrator as such, yet, in other cases, we are of opinion that letters of administration cannot be collaterally offered to establish the fact of the death of the supposed deceased, or, where the death is admitted, to prove the time of his death. They are not the best, and according to the authorities, they are not admissible evidence of the fact.

-Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Lukens v. Camden Trust Company
62 A.2d 886 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1948)
Steele's Unknown Heirs v. Belding
148 S.W. 592 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Fischer v. Giddings
95 S.W. 33 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1906)
Turner v. Sealock
54 S.W. 358 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1899)
Herndon v. Vick
45 S.W. 852 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1898)
Morin v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.
22 N.W. 251 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1885)
Weiskoph v. Dibble
18 Fla. 24 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 Tex. 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/englishs-admr-v-murray-tex-1855.