Court Opinion

ID: 9830999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:41:23.183321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:29.148534
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellants seriously contend, on motion for rehearing, that the district court was without jurisdiction to partition the land involved in this suit, as an administration was then pending in the county court of Collin county, and that court had exclusive jurisdiction.
Perforce article 3290, R. S. 1921, county courts have jutisdiction to settle, partition, and distribute estates of decedents where an administration is ponding, or where an administration is necessary, and, if appellee’s suit was one to partition the estate of which he was the administrator, appellants’ contention would be correct; as was said in the case of Meyer et al. v. Meyer et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 223 S. W. 259, 261: “It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the county court in all matters pertaining to the settlement and distribution of an estate which is being administered in such court, or administration of which is necessary, is exclusive. [Citing authorities.]”
Only one-half of the 98½ acres, involved in this suit, was owned by the estate of which appellee was administrator, and it alone was isubject to the orders of the county court, and had appellee’s suit been one to partition and distribute that half, the county court would have had exclusive jurisdiction. The other half was not owned by the estate, and was not subject to the administration, there*155fore, the county court did not have jurisdiction of that half.
Appellee’s partition suit being one to segregate the interest owned by the decedent’s estate from the interest of the other joint owners, the district court alone had jurisdiction. Whatever disposition may he made of the interest set aside to the administrator is cognizable in the county court. Appellants’ motion for rehearing is overruled.