Court Opinion

ID: 9828836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:46:52.914165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:53.639588
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee, by an able motion for rehearing, insists that we are in conflict with the case of Leatherwood v. Arnold, 66 Tex. 414, 1 S.W. 173. That case involved an action on a survivor in community’s bond. It was there held that a survivor could prefer creditors of equal dignity without liability on such survivor’s bond. In the present case Mrs. Key did not qualify as a survivor in community, but accepted under her deceased husband’s will, in which she was the sole beneficiary and independent executrix without bond. In this action for injunction her theory is grounded upon the premise that $42,000 of her separate estate was used to purchase real estate by her husband during his lifetime and thereby became her separate property. Her proof in this regard failed, conceding without deciding it to be the established rule that a survivor in community may prefer creditors of equal dignity as seems to be the holding in the Leatherwood Case, supra.
In view of the theory upon which this case was tried and the statutes mentioned in our original opinion, the rule stated is not applicable here. For an interesting discussion of the subject, see Evans v. Taylor, 60 Tex. 422, 425; Citizens’ National Bank v. Jones, 22 Tex.Civ.App. 45, 54 S.W. 405; Latham v. Dawson, 40 Tex.Civ.App. 219, 89 S.W. 315; Houston Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Swain, Tex.Civ.App., 114 S.W. 149; Fain v. Security State Bank & Trust Co., Tex.Civ.App., 226 S.W. 453; Law of Marital Rights by Speer, par. 690, p. 900. Neither does this case present a situation like the case of Farmers’ & Merchants’ National Bank of Waco v. Bell, 31 Tex.Civ.App. 124, 71 S.W. 570, writ refused, and cases following, wherein an injunction was obtained against an execution creditor of an insolvent estate, on the theory of preventing a preference among creditors.
Believing that we correctly determined the case before us in our original opinion, the motion for rehearing will be overruled.