The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1890-05-22

exhibits. but none of these
laws were fled in the county court as
prescribed in Art. 1913 r. S. Held, it
was necessary for that course to be
pursued "a Tex, 500. Chap. IA
r. s. prescribed the mode of proceed
ing by heir, devisee or administrator
to withdraw an estate from admins
tration. After the consolidation of
causes AS and 526 in district court
an exception to pleading of admins
traitor setting up his claims against
the state was sustained and cause 445
was dismissed. Cause 526 was tried,
and Judgment for plaintiff was rem
dered. from which Houston now APP
pcals. Held: Cause AS was properly
dismissed because the claim therein
against estate had not been filed I'D
d0cketed in the county court, and the
other suit, in order to have cause OF
action, either for effects, with which
the administrator was chargeable
when he made his exhibit, but were
not included in it, or for effects ac-
quired by him after his exhibit was
filed and during the time covered by
the litigation it was necessary for him
to have such cause of action ascer
tanned and fixed in the county court.
Until that is done the proceedings in
the county co1t are not final. 1T
will be proper to yet proceed in the
county court to compel the admins
traitor to render correct final ac-
count OF the condition OF the estate as
administered by him, and the admin
istrator may, before he has filed such
final account, &e with the clerk his
reasonable changes for expenses and
attorneys fees Or. S. Art. 2l92, 2l93,
IA Tex. 500.
Reversed and dismissed.
T. w. FoLTs EFT AL. VS.. A. II. FERGU-
SON, from Shackleford. Opinion by
Henry.
Suit by appellees to recover undi'
vided interests in land, to quiet their
possessions and to cancel power OF
attorney made by them and the deed
made under it. Petition alleges that
appellees, while minors, with the
owners of the other interests OF the
land, signed power of attorney au-
thorizing w. F. Ferguson to sell and
convey the land, and he did so to par
ties under whom defendants claim.
Defendants pleaded that the State OF
Texas secured in 1878 a judgment
against Elizabeth A. Ferguson ct al.
for $2442.46 and costs; that Elizabeth
A. Ferguson was then a widow and
mother of appellees and owned the
land in controversy as her separate
property; that in 1879 copy of said
Judgment was filed in the records of
Shackleford county and thereby be-
came lien on said land, and execu-
ton was duly issued in Travis county
and returned nulla bona that in 1880
said Elizabeth Ferguson, while largely
indebted to various parties, made to
her children Gncluding appellees) a
deed of gift in consideration of love
and affection, to sthe said land and
at the same time decided to same
parties on same consideration, all her
other property except the homestead !;
that said Elizabeth Ferguson and her
grantees aforesaid, in May, 1880, made
to said VIM. f. Ferguson said power of
attorney to enable him to satisfy and
pay off said judgment, and he as their
agent decided said lands to appellants
for 800 cash and $1634.03 balance
due onG judgment, and agreeing with
appellants that title should pass as
completely as if same were sold under
execution issued upon said judgments
that appellants paid off said judg-
ment on account OF said conveyance
to them and thereby became subro-
gated to all the rights, just as if the
land had been sold under execution,
purchased by them at said sale.
Plaintiffs excepted to this devise, and
the court sustained the exception.
Held: The facts alleged are that the
Judgment in favor of State was
lien on land at time of its conveyance
by the other to appellees and by Fergu-
son, attorney, to appellants. AS the
land was sold for express purpose of
providing for discharge of said lien, it
follows that even ifappellees on account
of their minority, are not bound by
deed to appellants, they yet can not
annul that deed and recover back the
land without restoring the money that
went to discharge the judgment lien
with interest. g Texas, 900;
81 Texas, 273; IA Texas, 1922
Reversed and remanded.
G. NEWCOMER EFT AL. VS.. STATE OF
TEXAS, from Travis county. Opin-
ion by Gaines, j.
Suit by State to recover S22l7.4 6 OF
sureties on bond OF tax collector of
Bandera county, for regular term of
Office beginning in year 1884, on ac-
count OF money collected and not paid
over. In 1886 said collector was re-
elected and gave new bond, with only
one of former sureties on same. State
obtained judgment for $llO912.
Defendants appealed on ground
they were not liable in any
amount, and State filed assign
ment claiming whole amount. 1t is