Gray v. McFarland

Texas Supreme Court
Gray v. McFarland, 29 Tex. 163 (Tex. 1867)
Moore

Gray v. McFarland

Opinion of the Court

Moore, C. J.

This suit is not to be regarded as an *169action against the administrator of Harris, and the sureties on his hond, to establish a claim against said Harris’ estate, or to subject effects in his hands in a fiduciary capacity, to the payment of the plaintiff’s demand. The cause of action set forth in the petition is the failure of Antry, in not paying the money claimed, as ordered by the county court, to keep the conditions of his hond, as administrator, by well and truly performing the duties required of him by law as such administrator. The authority to give the order in question is conferred upon the county court by the plain language of the statute. This order therefore is a couelusive and binding judgment upon the parties and their privies as to all points directly involved and necessarily determined by it. It absolutely determines appellee’s right to payment of the amount mentioned in the order, out of money belonging to said estate then in said Antry’s hands, and it impressed upon him the duty as such administrator of its immediate payment. His failure to comply with the obligation imposed by this order upon him made his sureties immediately and primarily liable for the amount of damages appellee sustained by this breach of the conditions of the bond.

The exceptions to the plea of payment were properly sustained. Said plea is vague, uncertain, and indefinite. It does not show at what time the payment was made which it seeks to set up; whether before or after the judgment of the county court, upon which appellee sues. For is it averred that appellee ever accepted in payment the notes with which it is alleged to have been made, or, in fact, that anything was or could have been realized from them.

There is no error in the judgment, and it is therefore

Affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
James Gray v. Wilson Y. McFarland
Cited By
10 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
A suit against an administrator and his sureties, for an amount ordered to be paid to a creditor by the probate court, is not a proceeding to establish an original debt. The authority of the county court to order money paid to a creditor is conferred by the plain language of the statute. (Paschal’s Dig., Arts. 1341, 1389, Note 524.) The order of the county court upon an administrator to pay an allowance to a creditor is a conclusive and binding judgment upon the parties and their privies, as to all points directly involved and necessarily determined' by it. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1341.) The failure of the administrator to pay according to the order of the county court renders him immediately and primarily liable for the amount of damages sustained by the creditor. A plea of payment must plainly and distinctly set forth the dates and facts of the payment, and if the defendant aver that he paid in notes, it must be stated that the notes were accepted or the money has been realized. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 3444, Note 795.)