Court Opinion

ID: 9829840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:40:45.123665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:07.624037
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
 It is now claimed that we were in error in rendering judgment against Mrs. Taylor as executrix. We do not think the authorities cited by appellants to support this contention sustain their proposition. Notwithstanding the dissolution of the partnership by Taylor’s death, a partnership creditor had the right to subject to the payment of his debt, not only the partnership assets, but also the property of the surviving partners and the individual property belonging to the estate of the deceased partner. It is said in the case of Gaut v. Reed, 24 Tex. 57, 76 Am. Dec. 94, the first case cited by appellants, that—
“It is the well-settled doctrine in equity, that every partnership debt is joint and several; and therefore the creditor may, at the same time, sue the survivor as such, and proceed against the estate of the deceased partner.”
In the ordinary case, where the suit had not been instituted at the time of the death of the partner, it might be necessary to first go to the probate court with the claim — that was the kind of case referred to in Dulaney v. Walshe, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 174, 22 S. W. 131. But article 1888, Revised Statutes, provides for the procedure in the case of the death of a party during pendency of the suit. See Lauraine v. Ashe, 109 Tex. 69, 191 S. W. 563, 196 S. W. 501, and in our opinion applies to the facts of this case. Article 2004, cited in our former opinion, provides for the form of judgment in such case.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.