Peabody v. Marks
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Cameron. Tried below before the Hon. M. P. Norton. • Catherine Peabody, the plaintiff in error, was appointed administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, David Peabody, on the 15th day of February, 1856; and the County Court set apart to the use of said widow and the minor children of the deceased, the homestead, and certain other property exempt by law from forced sale, on the 1st day of March, 1856. On the 4th day of September, 1857, said Catherine…
Read the full summary
Error from Cameron. Tried below before the Hon. M. P. Norton. • Catherine Peabody, the plaintiff in error, was appointed administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, David Peabody, on the 15th day of February, 1856; and the County Court set apart to the use of said widow and the minor children of the deceased, the homestead, and certain other property exempt by law from forced sale, on the 1st day of March, 1856. On the 4th day of September, 1857, said Catherine filed in that court her petition, showing that in consequence of a want of title thereto, she had been forced to pay of her…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
We are of opinion that the motion to dismiss the writ of error in this case must be sustained. The matter in controversy is one which concerns the plaintiff in error individually, and not in her representative capacity. The homestead rights, in relation to which the controversy arose, are accorded to her by the law, as the widow of the intestate, and not as the administratrix of his estate. She would have the same rights if she were not administratrix. The controversy being one which concerns *22her individually, she is required to give bond for costs before she can obtain a writ of error, in…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hart v. MillsTexas Supreme Court · 1868
- Spears v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1977