Luther v. Graves

408 S.W.2d 242, 1966 Tex. App. LEXIS 2961
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 7, 1966
DocketNo. 16759
StatusPublished

This text of 408 S.W.2d 242 (Luther v. Graves) 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
Luther v. Graves, 408 S.W.2d 242, 1966 Tex. App. LEXIS 2961 (Tex. Ct. App. 1966).

Opinion

OPINION

RENFRO, Justice.

On December 13, 1961, Edna Elizabeth Graves, appellee, defendant below, was appointed Guardian of the person and estate of her mother, Amelia K. Luther, a non compos mentis. Mrs. Luther died February 21, 1964.

Claims paid by the guardian were approved by orders entered by the probate court during the guardianship, and on April 28, 1964, an order was entered approving the guardian’s account for final settlement.

Appellants, grandsons of Mrs. Luther, did not appeal from any of the probate orders approving claims.

By petition for writ of certiorari filed in District Court March 12, 1965, appellants, as petitioners, sought for the first time to challenge the orders approving claims paid by the guardian.

Judgment was rendered for the guardian, and petitioners appealed.

That the action of a probate court in approving a claim in guardianship proceedings cannot be carried to the District Court by certiorari has been established by a long line of cases. Such action must be done by direct appeal.

Some of the cases so holding are: De Cordova v. Rogers, 97 Tex. 60, 75 S.W. 16 (1903); Eastland v. Williams, 92 Tex. 113, 46 S.W. 32 (1898); Logan v. Gay, 99 Tex. 603, 90 S.W. 861; 99 Tex. 603, 92 S.W. 255 (1906); Jones v. Williams, 14 S.W.2d 300 (Tex.Civ.App., 1929, dism.); Bolton v. Baldwin, 57 S.W.2d 957 (Tex.Civ.App., 1933, dism.); Jones v. Silverman, 84 S.W.2d 1013 (Tex.Civ.App., 1935, no writ hist.); Wimberley v. Parish, 381 S.W.2d 135 (Tex.Civ.App., 1964, ref., n. r. e.).

There are some exceptions to the above rule, e. g., where the order entered by the probate court is void, or there is fraud, etc. The instant case does not fall within any of the exceptions.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Wimberly v. Parish
381 S.W.2d 135 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1964)
Bolton v. Baldwin
57 S.W.2d 957 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1933)
Eastland v. Williams
46 S.W. 32 (Texas Supreme Court, 1898)
De Cordova v. Rogers
75 S.W. 16 (Texas Supreme Court, 1903)
Jones v. Williams
14 S.W.2d 300 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1929)
Jones v. Silverman
84 S.W.2d 1013 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1935)
Logan v. Gay
92 S.W. 255 (Texas Supreme Court, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
408 S.W.2d 242, 1966 Tex. App. LEXIS 2961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luther-v-graves-texapp-1966.