Bradbury v. Reed
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Austin. Tried below before the Hon. James H. Bell. This suit was brought by William Bradbury and another, the appellants, as administrators, against Nathaniel Reed, the appellee, for the sum of $431.25, alleging as a cause of action, that the defendant, on the first Tuesday of September, 1857, at a sale of property belonging to the estate of their intestate, made by order of the county court, bid off certain town lots, (described in the petition,) for the price…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Austin. Tried below before the Hon. James H. Bell. This suit was brought by William Bradbury and another, the appellants, as administrators, against Nathaniel Reed, the appellee, for the sum of $431.25, alleging as a cause of action, that the defendant, on the first Tuesday of September, 1857, at a sale of property belonging to the estate of their intestate, made by order of the county court, bid off certain town lots, (described in the petition,) for the price of $925; that he failed to comply with the terms of the sale, and that the property, after having been re-advertised…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.
One who bids off property at an administrator’s sale, cannot be required to comply with the terms of the sale, until there has been a decree entered on the minutes of the Probate Court, confirming the sale, and ordering a conveyance to be made to the purchaser, if it be of lands or slaves, by the executor or administrator. (Hart. Dig., Art. 1176.) Until this has been done, he will not be in default for failing to comply with the terms of the sale. And he cannot be held liable in an action under Article 1175 of the Digest, until he is in default. The decree of confirmation, was essential to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Pitt v. Texas Storage Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1892
- Hanna v. AtchisonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1911