Stamps v. Varelas

Court of Appeals of Texas

Stamps v. Varelas

313 S.W.2d 141, 1958 Tex. App. LEXIS 1986

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 7, 1958

Docket13337

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 313 S.W.2d 141 (Stamps v. Varelas) 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

Stamps v. Varelas, 313 S.W.2d 141, 1958 Tex. App. LEXIS 1986 (Tex. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

POPE, Justice.

Appellant, Lois D. Stamps, sued ' Nick Varelas as Administrator of the Estate of E. L. Gibson, Deceased. The trial cotírt instructed a verdict upon defendant’s contention that the claim of $448 was barred by limitations. Appellant presented her claim on February 21, 1957. The administrator did nothing, and appellant contacted the administrator the next time on May 15, 1957. Section 310, Probate Code, V.A.T.S., provides that a failure of the representative of an estate to endorse on a claim, either his allowance or rejection, within thirty days after the claim is presented, shall constitute a rejection. Hence, the claim was rejected by operation of law on or about March 24. Appellant had ninety days after the rejection of her claim in which to file suit. Sec. 313, Probate Code. She did not file suit until the one hundred first day after rejection, and, upon the administrator’s plea, it was then barred by limitations. Butler v. Fechner, Tex.Civ.App., 200 S.W. 1126. Appellant did not plead nor prove fraud, estoppel or waiver, which would avoid the limitations.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

POPE, Justice.

Appellant, Lois D. Stamps, sued ' Nick Varelas as Administrator of the Estate of E. L. Gibson, Deceased. The trial cotírt instructed a verdict upon defendant’s contention that the claim of $448 was barred by limitations. Appellant presented her claim on February 21, 1957. The administrator did nothing, and appellant contacted the administrator the next time on May 15, 1957. Section 310, Probate Code, V.A.T.S., provides that a failure of the representative of an estate to endorse on a claim, either his allowance or rejection, within thirty days after the claim is presented, shall constitute a rejection. Hence, the claim was rejected by operation of law on or about March 24. Appellant had ninety days after the rejection of her claim in which to file suit. Sec. 313, Probate Code. She did not file suit until the one hundred first day after rejection, and, upon the administrator’s plea, it was then barred by limitations. Butler v. Fechner, Tex.Civ.App., 200 S.W. 1126. Appellant did not plead nor prove fraud, estoppel or waiver, which would avoid the limitations.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

313 S.W.2d 141, 1958 Tex. App. LEXIS 1986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stamps-v-varelas-texapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack