Court Opinion

ID: 9829878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:41:50.237372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:08.102524
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellants challenge our conclusion as to the record showing sufficient evidence to establish that there was no administration pending on the estate of Nancy Toney Robson, no necessity therefor, and that appellants were not entitled to present the question, as same was not called to the attention of the trial court by exceptions, demurrers, or in their motion for a new trial, therefore, does not present an error apparent of record, and which this court is not required to consider when a determination of the existence of the error necessitates an examina•tion of the statement of facts.
On reviewing the record, we find that this cause was tried to the court without a jury, and at the conclusion of the testimony,' appellants presented a motion for an instructed verdict, also in due time, a motion for a new trial, objecting to the judgment entered, both of which motions were overruled, and to the action of the court.appellants excepted. On authorities of Heatley v. Ponder (Tex. Oiv. App.) 40 S.W.(2d) 951, Security Union Ins. Co. v. Reed (Tex. Civ. App.) 42 S.W.(2d) 494, we are of opinion that all errors set out in an appellants’ brief, calling the attention of the Court of Civil Appeals, and/or the Supreme Court, to the failure in proof to establish the essentials of a lawsuit, to confer jurisdiction on a district court, is sufficiently presented, without the necessity of having them specifically called to the attention of the court below. It seems to be the uniform holding of the courts of this state, that where the cause is tried to a court, without a jury, and exceptions taken to the judgment, appellant thereby reserves all errors upon which the appeal is predicated, and which are disclosed either in the record or statement of facts. Such holdings are based on the interpretation of article 1757, R. S. 1925, as amended, Acts 1931, 42d Leg., p. 68, e. 45, § 1 (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 1757), providing that,. “In all cases appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals and/or taken to the Supreme Court, it shall be sufficient if said briefs contain the ■ following: 1. A statement as to the nature and result of the suit. 2. The alleged error or errors upon which the appeal is predicated. 3. The authorities relied upon. 4. A statement and/or argument on the errors assigned. Provided, however, that the Supreme Court may adopt rules with reference to the form and time of filing of briefs generally, but not inconsistent with the provisions hereof.”
We concede our misconception of the record, in holding that the assignments leveled at the jurisdictional issue were not properly before the court. The assignments are incorporated in appellants’ brief requiring an examination of the statement of facts to determine the issue raised.
The real estate involved in this suit was the undisputed homestead of Nancy Robson, and her husband, Pin Robson, at the time of her death, and was no part of the decedent’s estate for. administration, and the payment of debts generally. Appellee’s debt and deed of trust lien was the only incumbrance to which the land could be subjected; under the Constitution and laws of this state, exempting homesteads to surviving constituent members of a family. Pin Robson was such a member, thus the homestead descended to appellants, free of any other debt. The probate court, of Ellis county, undoubtedly would have had the exclusive jurisdiction to pass on the validity of appellee’s claim and order the property sold for the payment thereof, and the discharge of the lien, except for the rule conferring original jurisdiction on the district court where the pleadings and proof reveal that there is no administration on the estate and no necessity therefor. Such allegation and proof is the exception to the rule which vested the jurisdiction of this case in the district court.
The necessity for an administration is presumed in every case where an estate of a decedent is involved, unless facts are shown that makes it the exception, and where the facts exist, or the presumption indulged, that there was, and/or is, a necessity for an administration, the presumption is that, an administration is pending, and *372the district court is without jurisdiction. On the other hand, if the facts show that there never was, and is not now, a necessity for administration, the presumption must be indulged that there is none pending. The necessity for the appointment of an administrator to administer an estate is one of the essential statutory averments for such appointment by a probate court. Article 3332, subd. 4, R. S. 1925.
In this case, under the related facts, we are of opinion, that there never was, and is not now, a necessity for administration on the estate of Nancy Toney Robson. This being true, there was and is nothing on which the administration could acquire jurisdiction to administer. We cannot indulge the thought that a probate court would do an unnecessary thing, all presumptions must be indulged in favor of courts doing only that which is contemplated by law. The appointment is the acme, or culmination, of a necessity; therefore, no necessity having existed for administration, and no estate to be administered, we conclude, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that none is pending. Such, in our opinion, is sufficient to warrant the holding that the district court had jurisdiction of the suit. Appellants’ motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.