Court Opinion

ID: 9828764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:43:12.755771+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:52.927483
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
If appellant had no right or. authority under the law to contest the will of Pat Jones, deceased, which the statutes of Texas clearly denies, what would it profit appellant or any one else to go into a disquisition on when and where a general demurrer should be filed? Appellant had no standing in court as a eontester of the will, and the court had the right, and it was its duty, to put appellant out of court, whether a general demurrer was filed by the executors at the proper time or not. The district court acted clearly within its powers in sustaining the general demurrer as to the amended petition, which was directed to the original petition, if the demurrer was good as against the amended pleading. Appellant had no right to contest the will, and no amount of amending could confer such right. The answer replying to the original petition was not destroyed by the filing of the amendment, and the general demurrer was effective as against the amended petition. Byers v. Carll, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 423, 27 S. W. 190, approved by the Supreme Court; Times Co. v. Puller, 215 S. W. 113. There is, therefore, no appropriateness in or call for, jeremiads as to destruction of the rules of practice and pleading by district courts to such an extent as to cause them to gradually develop “into corporation courts, where the lawyers on both sides and the witnesses all talk at the same time, without reference to the rules.”
The case of Bridgewater v. Hooks, 159 S. W. 1007, is not a contested will case, and has no applicability whatever to it. Appellant may have a good cause of action against the estate of Pat Jones, but that would not confer the right to contest the probate of the will. The case of Vidaurri v. Bruni, herein-*478before cited, applies with full force and effect, for it especially excepts the creditor as one who cannot contest a will. This is reiterated in Thompson v. Dodge, 210 S. W. 586, where this court held:
“No one is entitled to contest the probate of a will except a person interested therein, and in the cited case of Vidaurri v. Bruni this court held that by ‘person interested’ is meant one who either absolutely or contingently is entitled to share therein, and this would exclude the creditor.”
It may be “inexplicable” to appellant how courts should so construe the statute; but this court has so construed it, and the Supreme Court has approved that construction. This would seem to render such construction the law of Texas.
Under'the theories advanced by appellant, any creditor would be authorized to contest the probate of a will of the deceased debtor. This is not the law. As said by Alexander in Commentaries on Wills, pp. 2036-2039, after mentioning those who may contest a will as well as those who cannot:
“Nor has a creditor as such an interest in the estate of a decedent which will authorize him to contest the will, since it is immaterial by whom his claim is paid, or whether the assets of the estate are administered under the will, or as in case of intestacy. Any other rule would result in trouble, expense, and delay.”
The allegations of appellant show that she was not mentioned in the will, and that she is claiming $10,000 for services rendered deceased.
In article 3364, Revised Statutes, provision is made for any one having a claim against an estate, to the justice of which oath has been made by the claimant, to file a complaint asking that the executor be required to give á bond. In article 3365, it is provided that a bond may be required of the executor, if it is proved that he is wasting, mismanaging, or misapplying such estate, and that thereby said creditor may probably lose his debt. Those statutes evidently have application to executors acting under a will already probated, and the petition of appellant did not and could not make the necessary allegations upon which to base proof of waste, mismanagement, or misapplication of the estate, because the executors did not have possession of. the estate until the will was probated. Appellant’s only allegations are that, if the will is probated, the executors will dispose of the property of the estate, and that she will thereby suffer “irreparable damage and injury,” and if she had been allowed to prove her allegations the requirements of article 3365 would not have been met. Certainly a bond cannot be required of one named as independent executor in a will, until by probate of the will he becomes the independent executor.
Appellant is—
“somewhat surprised to note that this court refuses to pass upon appellant’s assignments of error Nos. 4, 5, and 6, wherein it is claimed that the will of the deceased Jones was not legally and duly probated by the district court.”
There is no ground for surprise, for, if appellant had no authority to contest probate of the will, it could be no business or concern of hers whether the will was properly probated or not. When this court held that appellant had no right in law to contest the will, that fully disposed of everything connected with the case.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.