Stone v. Spillman

16 Tex. 432
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1856
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 16 Tex. 432 (Stone v. Spillman) 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
Stone v. Spillman, 16 Tex. 432 (Tex. 1856).

Opinion

Lipscomb, J.

This suit was brought by the appellee against the appellant, to recover certain slaves claimed to belong to the estate of appellee’s intestate. The appellant suffered judgment by default, which he asked the Court to set aside, and permit him to answer. The showing seemed to be sufficient to set aside the default; but the answer, it was thought by the Court below, did not set up a meritorious defence, and the only point presented for our consideration is, as to the meritorious character of the defence offered by the defendant, the present appellant.

The answer offered, alleged that Spillman did not die intestate ; that he left a will, leaving the disposition of his property to the appellant; that defendant had presented the will for probate, and applied for letters of administration with the will [433]*433annexed ; that the Court admitted the will to probate, but refused to appoint appellant administrator, but appointed the appellee administratrix with the will annexed ; that he, the defendant, had appealed from the decision of the Probate Court, which was still pending ; that he had also appealed from the grant of administration first made to appellees, which appeal was also pending ; that defendant held the property sued for under the will.

We believe that if the answer be true, (and it must be regarded to be true,) a meritorious defence was offered; that the appeal suspended all proceedings until it was decided. The giving bond and security suspended all action until the appeal was tried and decided. (See case just decided between same parties on the appeal referred to in the answer.) The judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Houtchens v. Mercer
29 S.W.2d 1031 (Texas Supreme Court, 1930)
W.D. Yett, Mayor v. Cook
281 S.W. 843 (Texas Supreme Court, 1926)
Yett v. Cook
268 S.W. 715 (Texas Supreme Court, 1925)
Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. State of Texas
106 S.W. 326 (Texas Supreme Court, 1907)
Mowry v. Harris
28 A. 657 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1894)
Ketchum v. Thatcher
12 Mo. App. 185 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1882)
Clarke v. Manchester
56 N.H. 502 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1876)
Montevallo Coal Mining Co. v. Reynolds
44 Ala. 252 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1870)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 Tex. 432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stone-v-spillman-tex-1856.