Bartlett's Heirs v. Cocke
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Washington. It did not appear that a new bond was either ordered or filed at the extension of Feb. 25th, 1839. In the deed from Oliver Jones to McFaddin, the date of the petition for an order of sale was described as the 22nd of Oct., 1840, but the petition was copied at length and purported to conclude with a date in figures, as follows ; “ Washington, Oct. 22nd, 1842.” The deed recited that the sale was made in pursuance of said order, on the 3rd of Dec., 1840.
1Opinion of the Court
Hemphill, Ch. J.
This was a suit by the heirs of Jesse Bartlett, decased, to recover from James H. Cocke a tract of Land originally belonging to the estate of the deceased, and claimed by defendants through mesne conveyances from an administrator’s sale. The main question in the cause is whether Oliver Jones, who acted as administrator at the sale *474of the land, was in fact administrator, his term of office having previously expired, as is contended by the appellants. To understand the position of the administrator at that date, it will be necessary to recur to the principal proceedings had in…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Hatchett v. ConnerTexas Supreme Court · 1867
- Ryan v. FergussonWashington Supreme Court · 1891
- Rindge v. OliphintTexas Supreme Court · 1884
- Pendleton v. ShawCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1898
- Adams v. AdamsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1916
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.