Court Opinion

ID: 9834160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:21:05.927822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:12.201331
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It is true that the executor of the estate of H. M. Ball, deceased, had the statutory right to institute the suit against the defendants to' recover title to the ½ interest in the land in controversy, which belonged to the estate of his testator, without joinder of the heirs of H. M. Ball, under the provisions of Article 1981, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes. It is also true that without joinder of those heirs of H. M. Ball, deceased, he could recover against the defendants the ½ interest in the property belonging to the testator, or any part thereof, according to the rights-of the parties, as provided in Article 7387, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes.
But as the other undivided ½ interest in the property in controversy belonged to the heirs of Mrs. Delila A. Ball, deceased, who had died intestate, and was no part of the estate of H. M. Ball, deceased, plaintiff, as executor of the estate of H. M. Ball, had no right whatever to recover title to that -½ interest, and since the facts specially pleaded by plaintiff conclusively showed that only ½ interest in the property belonged to the estate of H. M. Ball, deceased, the petition for the recovery of the other ½ was subject to a general demurrer, even in the absence of any plea in abatement. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Warren, Tex.Civ.App., 72 S.W.2d 347. At all events, the heirs who owned the ½ interest were necessary parties to the suit to recover the same, against the defendants. We believe these conclusions are fully supported, not only by sound reasoning, but by an unbroken line of decisions of this State, a few only of which will be cited: Smith v. Olsen, Tex.Civ.App., 44 S.W. 874; May v. Slade, 24 Tex. 205; Keith v. Keith, 39 Tex.Civ.App. 363, 87 S.W. 384; Cotton v. Coit, 88 Tex. 414, 31 S.W. 1061; Duncanson v. Howell, Tex.Com.App., 222 S.W. 232; 14 Tex.Jur., sect. 549, p. 334.
Not only was it shown by the last will and testament of H. M. Ball, in connection with the inventory of his estate, filed by the executor, plaintiff in this suit, that 160 acres of the land sued for did not belong to the estate, but it appears from the pleadings of defendant Ira Cundiff that he claims title to a part of that 160 acres through mesne conveyances emanating in a deed by H. M. Ball and wife, Delila Ball, and that he has filed a disclaimer of any title to the 80 acres which plaintiff listed, in the inventory of the estate of H. M. Ball. It also appears from the pleadings filed by defendants Snowden & McSwee-ney that they are claiming title to an oil interest in said 80 acre tract, as assignee of T. J. Moore, to whom a deed was executed by H. J. Cox and wife, Martha Cox, as alleged in plaintiff’s petition.
After the death of H. M. Ball, his right as community administrator ceased, and the fact that, as such administrator, he could have instituted this suit to recover title to the whole of the community interest in the property in controversy, without joining the heirs of Mrs. Delila Ball, is wholly immaterial in this suit. Plaintiff, as his executor, now stands in his shoes and with no greater right than he, H. M. Ball, would have had, had he never taken out letters as community administrator, or as administrator of his *506wife’s estate, and had instituted this suit in his individual right to recover the half interest owned by the heirs of his wife, as well as his half interest without making them parties to the suit, which he could not have done under the authorities cited.
The motion for'rehearing is overruled.