Giberson v. Hoerster

339 S.W.2d 730, 1960 Tex. App. LEXIS 2580
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 26, 1960
DocketNo. 10750
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 339 S.W.2d 730 (Giberson v. Hoerster) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Giberson v. Hoerster, 339 S.W.2d 730, 1960 Tex. App. LEXIS 2580 (Tex. Ct. App. 1960).

Opinion

ARCHER, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying appellant any recovery in a suit against appellee for the possession of a sum of money alleged to be the property of Donald Marion Woodward, a person of unsound mind.

The aggregate of the sum sued for was $490.23. At the date of trial the amount on hand was $359.39.

The funds are social security benefit payments made to appellee, upon application made on May 12, 1950, to the Administration, to receive benefits in which it was .represented to the Administration that all payments would be spent or saved for the use and benefit of Woodward. Such application was made and benefits paid under the provisions of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(j), under certification of the Administration in July, 1958.

Appellant is the duly appointed guardian ■of the estate of Woodward, and has made demand on appellee for the funds and ap-pellee has declined to pay to the guardian such funds, but has used them for the benefit of Mr. Woodward, who was furloughed by the Austin State Hospital, appellee being the Superintendent thereof, to the Ada Turner Rest Home on February 24, 1959, prior to the appointment of the guardian and subsequent to commitment of the ward to the hospital.

Appellant has not made application to the Social Security Administration to be designated as being entitled to receive benefits on account of Mr. Woodward under the provisions of the Act.

Irrespective of the character of the funds on hand with appellee as being the property of the ward or being held for the ward’s use and benefit, we believe that the funds should not be disturbed except under the direction of the Administrator of the Act under the provisions thereof.

The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

In re the Estate of Kummer
93 A.D.2d 135 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
339 S.W.2d 730, 1960 Tex. App. LEXIS 2580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giberson-v-hoerster-texapp-1960.