Airhart v. Murphy
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Rusk. Tried below before the Hon. J. B. Williamson. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Nothing in the record shows that the executrix ever executed any bond as such, unless that be inferred from an allegation in the petition that letters testamentary were granted to her. The suit was not brought upon any bond, as might, perhaps, be supposed from some portions of the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMorrill, C. J.
On January 1, 1860, one Ewing executed to plaintiff his promissory note, and afterwards died, leaving the note unpaid, having previously made his will, appointing his surviving wife his executrix, with directions to settle the estate without the intervention of the Probate Court. The widow having probated the will, and returned into court an inventory of the property, married Murphy.
The note being unpaid, and Mrs. Murphy, executrix, refusing to pay it, suit was brought on the note against her as such executrix, as well as her husband in his capacity as such, requesting a judgment against her…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Continental Insurance v. MillikenTexas Supreme Court · 1885
- Wilson v. FridenbergSupreme Court of Florida · 1886