142 S.W.2d 584 | Tex. App. | 1940
This cause originated in the County Court of Cameron County, Texas, in a probate proceeding therein pending styled In re Estate of Antonio Longoria, Deceased.
On November 22, 1937, Wm. D. Cleveland & Sons filed a petition in said probate proceeding seeking to -require Leah Field Longoria, as administratrix of the estate, to file an. exhibit of the condition of the estate.
On December 13, 1937, in pursuance to citation issued on the petition, Leah Field Longoria, as community administratrix of the estate of Antonio Longoria, deceased, filed an account and exhibit showing the condition of such estate. On December 21, 1937, Wm. D. Cleveland & Sons and M. Garcia Gomez & Champion, owners of valid and. subsisting claims against the estate, filed their objections and exceptions to said exhibit and account.
On February 11, 1939, the Probate Court of Cameron County, Texas, in said cause entered its order approving said exhibit, from which order the above named creditors prosecuted an appeal to the District Court of Cameron County, 103d Judicial District, and on April 24, 1939, by order of that date, the District Court entered an order re-classifying one of the claims as contained in said exhibit, from a claim of the fourth class to one of the third class, and otherwise in all things approved the action of the Probate Cotxrt, from which order of the District Court Wm. D. Cleveland & Sons and M. Garcia Gomez & Champion have appealed to this Court.
The exhibit shows, among other things, that Leah Field Longoria, as surviving wife of Antonio Longoria, was allowed the sum of $3,125 for a year’s maintenance for herself and her two minor children, and that she took the stock of goods and fixtures used in connection with a grocery store owned by the estate in lieu of the said sum of money. This was all provided for by order of the Probate Court, dated March 23, 1936.
After her husband’s death Leah Field Longoria took over the management of the grocery store and continued to operate it. She paid herself a salary of $125 per month for her services in conducting the store.
Appellants contend that this salary of $125 per month was sufficient for
The judgment is affirmed.