21 Tex. 523 | Tex. | 1858
The principal ground of the motion to dismiss is that the plaintiff in error is not entitled to the writ, having no such interest within the purview of the Statute as would authorize him to sue out a writ of error. (Hart. Dig. Art. 793.)
The plaintiff in error is the Chief Justice of Cherokee county, and was improperly made a party to this proceeding.
As Judge of the County Court, he had decided in effect that Daniel Tullar, the defendant in error, should not, without giving bond and security, have letters of executorship upon the will of Jesse J. Cypert’s dec’d. The testator had appointed two others with the defendant as his executors, and had exempted them from giving bond and security, and had also declared that no action, relative to his estate, should be had in the Probate Court, beyond the registration of his will. The other two executors having renounced the County Court refused letters to the third, who was defendant in error, without bond, and, on the ground, in effect, that the refusal of one
It appears, however, that the cause coming on for trial was regarded and treated very properly as an ordinary proceeding on certiorari.
No attempt was made to recover judgment against the Chief Justice.
No notice was taken of him as a party. The judgment of the Couny Court was reversed in the particular complained of. But there was no judgment against the Judge of that Court.
The costs were ordered to be paid out of the estate.
The Chief Justice should have been dismissed from the suit with Ms costs. But as there was no judgment against him, as the costs were to come out of the succession, the decree was equivalent in substance to a judgment for him, and that he should go, &c., without day.
There being no judgment against Mm. He having no interest within the meaning of the Statute in or against the
The motion to dismiss is sustained.
Writ of error dismissed.