Court Opinion

ID: 9675242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:46:41.895859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:32.747967
License: Public Domain

NYE, Justice
(concurring).
The judgment of the Probate Court dated March 29, 1968, attempts in effect to remove the independent executor from office, by the transfer to the temporary administrator all of the possessions of the estate and by enlarging its powers. The Probate Court does not have the power or jurisdiction to remove a duly qualified independent executor unless such executor is first required to give bond and then fails or refuses to give such bond. Bell v. Still, 389 S.W.2d 605 (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco 1965) adopted 403 S.W.2d 353 (Tex.Sup. 1966). This is not the case here.
In view of the fact that the Alice National Bank has fully qualified and is acting as the independent executor of the estate of Sarita K. East, there can he no lawful appointment of a temporary administrator with full powers, because there cannot be' two full administrations of the same estate existing at the same time. King v. King, 230 S.W.2d 335 (Tex.Civ.App. — Amarillo, 1950, wr. ref.). Article 132 of the Probate Code which authorizes the appointment of a temporary administrator is inapplicable under the fact situation before us. There are no disputed fact questions here presented on this appeal, only questions of law. Therefore, the matter of the trial court’s discretion is not involved. For these reasons I concur in the results reached in the majority opinion.