Newson v. Chrisman
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Washington. Chrisman had been appointed administrator of one Stephen Jordan in 1S3!); had given bond and returned an inventory; and it did not appear that anything further had been done until Newson, representing himself to be tho guardian of Albert and Ann, minor heirs of said Jordan, iiled a petition in their behalf in 1851, that said Chrisman be required to settle, his account, &c.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Washington. Chrisman had been appointed administrator of one Stephen Jordan in 1S3!); had given bond and returned an inventory; and it did not appear that anything further had been done until Newson, representing himself to be tho guardian of Albert and Ann, minor heirs of said Jordan, iiled a petition in their behalf in 1851, that said Chrisman be required to settle, his account, &c. Olirisman was duly notified, and failing-to appear, the Probate Court made a decree against him. This was at the April Term, 3831. At the, May Term Chrisman appeared aud moved to set aside the…
1Opinion of the CourtLipsCOMjB, J.
Prom the view we have 1 alcen of this ease it is not considered material to look beyond the proceeding's of the District Conrt.
It appears that a balance to a very large amount had been struck by the probate judge against the administrator. He was not present when the account was struck by the probate judge; he had however been cited to appear and render in his account. lie applied to the judge of the District Conrt for a certiorari to take the case into the District Court, and rested his application on grounds that seem to be sufficient. Although ho liad been cited to appear, yet from…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Sun Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1951
- Fisher v. WoodTexas Supreme Court · 1885
- Huppman v. SchmidtTexas Supreme Court · 1886
- Wilmarth v. ReaganTexas Commission of Appeals · 1922
- Hickman v. StewartTexas Supreme Court · 1887
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.