Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/McShan v. Lewis, Administrator

McShan v. Lewis, Administrator

76 S.W. 616, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 253, 1903 Tex. App. LEXIS 474
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 15, 1903
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 76 S.W. 616 (McShan v. Lewis, Administrator) 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
McShan v. Lewis, Administrator, 76 S.W. 616, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 253, 1903 Tex. App. LEXIS 474 (Tex. Ct. App. 1903).

Opinion

GARRETT, Chief Justice.

Henry Lewis, as the administrator of the estate of A. Huston, deceased, filed his final account in said estate in the County Court of San Augustine County, September 28, 1901. On February 25, 1902, the plaintiffs in error, as heirs of the deceased, filed amended exceptions to said account including the prior annual accounts. The account filed showed a balance in favor of the administrator of $96.85. The exceptions were overruled by the county judge, and from an order of the county court approving the account, the said McShan and others appealed to the District Court of San Augustine County. On trial in the district court certain of the objections to the account were sustained and judgment was rendered against the administrator for $303.88. The contestants of the account have brought the judgment of the district court before this court for revision by writ of error.

The property belonging to the estate of A. Huston consisted of lands, much of which was located after the defendant in error had taken charge of the estate. There is no contest about the facts. The objections made to the account, which were overruled by the court below, are presented by nineteen assignments of error, every one of which must be sustained.

All of the items objected to are for charges that accrued subsequent to the death of the deceased and are for expenses of administration, and come under articles 2247 and 2248 of the Revised Statutes. They are included in exhibits filed by the administrator which were passed on and approved by the court, but the items were not supported by accounts of claims verified by the administrator and filed with the clerk and entered upon the claim docket. The defendant in error was duly appointed administrator de bonis non of the estate in connection with H. H. Huston, who afterwards retired from the administration in some way not shown by the record. The first report made by the defendant in error was made in connection with his coadministrator, and was *254 filed February 1, 1878. They filed another report November 24, 1879. Subsequent reports were filed by the defendant in error alone January 28, 1882; September 17, 1884; September 25, 1885; November 15, 1886; August 6, 1887, and January 15, 1893. It appears from the record that the exhibit filed November 24, 1879, was examined by the court, and by an order entered November 24, 1879, was approved in each particular except the item in favor of C. I. Polk and the claim of Henry Huston for extra services as administrator, the latter being allowed at $100 instead of the larger amount $300 charged. This item appeared in the account as follows: "Amount claimed by Henry Huston for extra services rendered in admn., $300.” It is not supported by any-voucher itemizing it, but in swearing to the exhibit Huston states "that the claim put in by him for services rendered the estate he believes to be reasonable and correct.” The item in favor of $250 in favor of Polk was .afterwards approved for full amount. An ordet was made November 23, 1885, "account current filed September 15, 1885, by Henry Lewis, one of the administrators of said estate, is. duly examined in open court and is hereby fully approved and ordered to -be recorded according to law,” then followed the account which showed debits against the estate in favor of the administrator aggregating $2276.36 and a credit in favor of the estate of $12.80, the proceeds of the sale of the land. An order was made by the district court sitting as a probate court at September term, 1884, approving the exhibit to that term as "appearing to the court to be correct and proper vouchers therewith .and showing a balance' due administrator of seventeen hundred and fifty=six 59-100 dollars.” Exhibits filed November 15, 1886, and August 6, 1887, were shown to have been recorded. Ob-¡¡Actions were made to the following items as not having been properly itemized and probated as required by law and not proper charges against the estate:

*255

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

Related

Anderson, Adm'x. Et Vir v. Armstrong
120 S.W.2d 444 (Texas Supreme Court, 1938)
Dallas Joint-Stock Land Bank in Dallas v. Maxey
112 S.W.2d 305 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1937)
Hurley v. Hirsch
66 S.W.2d 387 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1933)
Morton's Estate v. Ferguson
45 S.W.2d 419 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1932)
Scott v. Taylor
294 S.W. 227 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Jones, Administrator v. Gilliam
212 S.W. 930 (Texas Supreme Court, 1919)
Friend v. Boren
95 S.W. 711 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
76 S.W. 616, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 253, 1903 Tex. App. LEXIS 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcshan-v-lewis-administrator-texapp-1903.