Court Opinion

ID: 9829815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:38:59.684827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:06.845041
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The motion of Finis E. Morgan, independent executor; and a motion filed by attorney for .the estate of W. O. Fly, insist that the county court at law No. 1, Tarrant county, in which this case was tried, was without jurisdiction, and that the county court of Tarrant county was the only court having jurisdiction. We do not concur in that contention. Without a review of the case, we think the opinion of Judge James, speaking for the San Antonio court in Epperson v. Reeves, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 167, 79 S. W. 845, a writ of error refused, very clearly discusses the question of jurisdiction presented, and settles the question against appellant’s contention.
 The court was not in error in rendering judgment against the estate of W. C. Fly, of which Morgan was independent executor. He took possession of the note, and the proceeds of the note when collected, as representative of the estate and .in the capacity stated, and as an asset of the estate, and, if he made an improper disposition of it as such independent executor of the estate, we think he would be liable as executor, and that the estate would be liable. He was sued in such Representative capacity and so answered. It might have been better practice, two parties claiming to own the identical'note, for him, as stakeholder of the note, to have brought the claimants into court and let them try the issue of ownership out among themselves. But that was not done, and we must try the ease here on the theory upon which it was tried and disposed of in the trial court. The executor acted in the matter as executor of the estate, and disposed of the note and its proceeds as such executor.
Appellant offered to prove by the witness Waggoman, a legatee under the will, that W. O. Fly, in his transactions with T. A. Lyles, had the witness Waggoman to see about collecting the notes in controversy as the property of Lyles, and not the property of appellee. The evidence was not admissible. It is not shown that the direction given to Waggoman was in the presence of appellee, a self-serving statement of an agent to his principal. Shiner v. Abbey, 77 Tex. 1, 13 S. W. 613; Providence-Washington Ins. Co. v. Owens (Tex. Civ. App.) 207 S. W. 666; Ætna Ins. Co. v. Richey (Tex. Civ. App.) 206 S. W. 383; Slocum v. Putnam (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 S. W. 52.
Appellant offered to prove by the witness Finis E. Morgan, in effect, that the note in question was bought with T. A. Lyles’ money, and it was never the property of ap-pellee.
The witness was the executor of the estate involved and sued as such, and it dobs not appear that the witness was called to testify thereto by appellee. The evidence was not admissible under article 3716 (old article 3690) of the statute. Dunn v. Vinyard (Tex. Com. App.) 251 S. W. 1043; Ralls v. Ralls (Tex. Civ. App.) 256 S. W. 688; Walls v. Cruse (Tex. Com. App.) 235 S. W. 199.
We have carefully reviewed other matters referred to in the motions, and have concluded that they present no reversible error, and they are overruled.
The motions are overruled.