Court Opinion

ID: 9868287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:27:38.090394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:48.849333
License: Public Domain

On Petition eor Rehearing
Mr. Justice Bonham:
The Court has given careful consideration to the questions made by the petition- for rehearing in the above-stated cause. It does not find that it has overlooked, nor failed to determine, any material issue made by the appeal. It did not specifically refer to that made by Exception 5, which imputes error to Judge Dennis for that his decree provided that, if his order be contested and the estate put to further expense by an appeal from that order, R. O. Bowden shall pay the premium on his administrator’s bond, and the estate shall in no way be liable for the same. The effect of the decision of this Court which declared the appointment of R. O. Bowden as administrator to be invalid was to hold the estate to be free from liability for the premium on his bond. Thus the question of the power of Judge Dennis to provide that if Bowden appealed from his order the estate should not be liable for the premium on his bond, *346became academic. We know of m> law which authorizes one whose appointment as administrator of an estate has been declared by the Court to be invalid to charge to the estate the sum which he has paid as premium on his bond. Until the passage of the Act of the Legislature incorporated in the Civil Code of 1932 as Section 8959, an administrator had no right to charge such item of expense to the estate; he must bear it out of his commissions. It would be a far stretch of the privilege given in the act to extend its benefit to one whose appointment has been pronounced invalid.
The petition for rehearing is refused.
Let this order be reported with the case.
Mr. Chief Justice BlEase and Messrs. Justices Stabler and Carter concur.