Court Opinion

ID: 9830471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:14:13.488182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:23.076498
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In their motion for rehearing plaintiffs in error request us to make additional findings of fact, as follows:
“The amount received by the administrator in consideration of the sale and transfer of said note was the sum of $13,500. Such sale and transfer of said note by said administrator was Without any order of the probate court authorizing him to do so.”
The request is granted, and the above supplementary findings are made by us. We think it proper to state, however, in connection with this finding, that the administrator had authority under the order of sale to sell the property for all cash, or for not less than one-third cash and the balance in deferred payments. The transaction amounted practically to a sale for cash. It is true that the note mentioned was created, same being payable on or before one year from its date; but on the same day, and apparently as a part of the same transaction, the note was transferred to a loan company. While we do not regard this as, strictly speaking, a payment of the note by the maker, yet, since all of this transaction took place prior to the suit for partition and distribution mentioned in the original opinion, and the appellants *618themselves divided the proceeds of this sale, and no appeal was ever had from the judgment in the partition suit, we do not think appellants should now he heard to complain.
We are requested to make the further finding of fact:
“In his report filed in response to application for partition and distribution, the administrator credited himself with a commission of 5 per cent, of the proceeds of the sale of such note, same amounting to $675, and such credit was allowed in the judgment rendered upon such application.”
This request is also granted, and the above findings are made as supplementary to those contained in the original opinion. In addition to the authorities cited in the original opinion on the question of the finality of judgments of a probate court rendered in the course of a probate proceeding, we desire to cite the following: Heath v. Layne, 62 Tex. 694; Richardson v. Kennedy. 74 Tex. 507, 12 S. W. 219; De Cordova v. Rodgers, 97 Tex. 60, 75 S. W. 16.
We have carefully considered the motion for rehearing, but adhere to our original opinion. The motion will therefore be overruled.