Mayman v. Reviere

47 Tex. 357
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 47 Tex. 357 (Mayman v. Reviere) 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
Mayman v. Reviere, 47 Tex. 357 (Tex. 1877).

Opinion

Gould, Associate Justice.

The questions presented arise under the probate law of August 15, 1870, and especially under the 26th section of that law, as follows: “ The property reserved from forced sale by the Constitution and laws of this State, or its value, if there' be no such property, does not form any part of the estate of a deceased person, where a constituent of the family survives.” (Paschal’s Dig., art. 5487.) Li Terry v. Terry, supra, it was held by our predecessors, construing this law, that the surviving widow is “ entitled to an allowance in lieu of a homestead, and also in lieu of such personal property exempt by law from forced sale, as her husband did not leave her at the time of his death, and under article 5487 so much of the property as is required to make good these allowances, is not otherwise subject to administration.” Whatever difficulty we might have had in arriving originally at these conclusions, it is reasonable to assume that the decision in Terry v, Terry was followed by the District Courts throughout the State; and the injurious effects which would probably result from a contrary construction at this late day constitute a sufficient reason why we should treat the question as settled.

[361]*361The statute itself is no longer the law, and we are content to accept the contemporaneous construction which we find that it received from our predecessors—a construction, it is to .be remarked, which harmonizes with the legislation of the State both prior and subsequent to the act of 1870. (See Probate Law of 1848 and of 1876.)

According to this construction, the court did not err in making the allowances to the widow, nor in holding that these allowances took precedence of the lien of an attachment creditor. (Giddings v. Crosby, 24 Tex., 295.)

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

[Associate Justice Moose dissenting.]

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

Related

State v. Valmont Plantations
346 S.W.2d 853 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1961)
Thompson v. Kay
77 S.W.2d 201 (Texas Supreme Court, 1934)
Newnom v. Hedeman
184 S.W. 298 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)
Hill v. Smith
25 S.W. 1079 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1894)
Armstrong v. Moore
59 Tex. 646 (Texas Supreme Court, 1883)
Eakin v. Home Insurance
1 White & W. 709 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1881)
Abney v. Pope
52 Tex. 288 (Texas Supreme Court, 1879)
Heathcock v. Goodrich
2 Posey 584 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1879)
Mabry v. Ward
50 Tex. 404 (Texas Supreme Court, 1878)
McLane v. Paschal
47 Tex. 365 (Texas Supreme Court, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 Tex. 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayman-v-reviere-tex-1877.