*1 Tes.) ORDEN PITTS v. VAST in- property, shown, executor was not to such the value of which was not' liable original legacy rate. terest on the at the. entitled, appellee was not estab decree Cent. see [Ed. Note.—For other lishing foreclosing a lien Dig. Dig. 1847-1872; 734.*] §§ Dec. § property. words, Miles In other the conten upon appellee tion is that the burden rested Rehearing. On respective Lampa- to show the values of the (§ 714*) Bequest 2. Wmns Creditor- — county land, sas lot the house and Satisfaction oe Debt. Lampasas in heir, the town of Decedent, that were used testatrix’s sole who was bequeathed suppressing Y. in she will which appellant acquiring property in certain an undivided that, town of Miles. It is well settled when land, he used estate which obtained whole a trustee own mixes the trust fund with his during queathing sufficient conversion of her interest in with were gether, persons lifetime, be- his but left a himself will private $1,000, funds, more Y. which was will the trust attach to the en V. for his indebtedness to fund; tire plication and we think that rule has estate testatrix’s rate, any to eases of kind. At and V. interest at 6 cent. Decedent up appellant cousins, having grown opinion that, as children to- we are of if desired and decedent made effect avoid of that the burden in- related nor whom he was neither respective to show the values and left more than sufficient debted an estate pieces any property of by all the be- the two that were used debts he owed and quests decedent’s not conversion an intent on Seld, made. to indicate acquiring property him in town should by that his to V. Ry. Bremond, of Miles. H. & T. C. Co. v. his 448; 9, 10, Tex. 18 S. W. of her Pom. §§ p. 207; 1051, 1053, cases, Wills, Simkins Zun Note.—For other [Ed. Dig. 714.*] §§ ; Gess, dell v. Tex. 10 S. W. 693 Moore Bank, Nat. v. First 154 Mo. 135 S. Appeal Court, Harrison from District W. 1005. County; Lyttleton, H. T. allege Appellant did not his answer that Mrs. Annie Ward Van Orden Lampasas, the house and lot the town of others Mrs. Hattie Pitts and others. part payment which used for the Judgment ap- plaintiffs, defendants acquired Miles, lots in the town of was his peal. rehearing. Reversed remanded on exempt liens; homestead, and therefore appel- appel- Davidson, Marshall, Beard & perceive nor do that it would have made Marshall, P. Young, M. lants. alleged, difference so unless he lees. proper- the relative of that value ty which tract of land formed the consideration balance for the lots WILLSON, Mrs. Ann Eliza C. J. appellee’s ap- Miles. fault January , 1896, leaving n — died a will pellant used his homestead in connection grand- terms of which she appellee tract of land with the on which had son, Gardner, $1,000 John M. and other equitable lien for the lots property specify, Miles; appellant desired to have those niece, Annie Ward protected lots extent Ward, then Annie about of of child homestead, duty, was his age, $500, piece an undivided interest in a upon him, rested and the burden show Ballinger, land and other property, the value of the homestead in or- necessary specify. Had died might decree, der that intestate, Gardner, heir, as her exempt extent, the Miles from have taken her entire At estate. during nearly the time appellee’s equitable operation lien. Mrs. died and disposes assignments pre- all afterwards it was not This known that brief; appellant’s being will. December, 1896, bating Her was found sented ble error reversi- Gardner about shown, pro- it seems. Instead of af- it, the will when he firmed. found concealed its existence from Mrs. Van Affirmed. Morphis’ only heir, and possession having, as taken property belonging estate, including her in about the sum of money et al. v. ORDEN PITTS VAN et al. aggregating and vendor lien notes $400, sum of which he collected in De- (Court of Civil of Texas. Texarkana. cember, 1896, possession retained thereof and May 5, On Motion for Re- July 1913.) hearing, used same as his own until his which January 19, occurred 1906. At the time he 734*) Suppression—Liability 1. Winns died, estate, including $13,500 Gardner’s op Heik —Interest. life, heir, suppressing insurance testatrix’s sole worth Where will, obtained of her $30,000. whole es- will, by He left a tate, heir acy another, which he to Mrs. Van Orden leaving bequeathing leg- later died $1,000, ag- to various other sums more than sufficient to sat- isfy original gregating $3,900, the heir’s and to his stepmother, other oases see same and section NUMBER Dec. Am. Series & *2 (Tex. REPORTER SOUTHWESTERN

lOáá greater debt, ot or Pitts, reason remainder pellant the that there is Hattie Mrs. Pitts, sustained, 1906, March, Mrs. the contention be not estate. About is, true, Van unless will, paid it is it insist executrix of Orden the applicable thereby bequeathed her. that the rule Gard because ex- ner’s the indebtedness Mrs. Van was of did not learn Van Orden Mrs. “trust by until funds.” That rule is not Mrs. the istence of the will February, plicable shortly Having that when the debt of the testator is to, Yan such funds is Mrs. be the law in 18 declared of the date secured Orden commenced ap- probate it, (2d p. by 773, Ed.) <&E. proceedings A. Enc. Law on cited pellees, brought Taylor Taylor, husband, joined by then, suit of v. and 1218, Tompson Wilson, 4 Jur. and N. S. husband v. Mrs. Pitts and her App. 29, (enforce- Riper Riper, $1,425.40 Ill. and Van v. obtained the belonging only against property J. to the N. 1. We have not had access to able hands), from either of the cases cited and therefore have estate which this that said Gardner unable, appeared they sup appeal prosecuted. to determine whether is port Mrs. heir of the statement of author ar-' as the of the Mrs. Van encyclopedia in the interest tide to or not. undivided referred Adkins owned a one-third Century lot; Ballinger From of one statements that the heirs made Digests points Decennial interest as to the decided Ward owned an undivided one-third Jersey therein; at the date Illinois New we Mrs. expect find, one- of third undivided if we access to her death owned the other them, By that not that author’s in the lot. Tompson Morphis’ Wilson, statement. In of her one-third v. 82 Ill. will one-half Digest, p. to Mrs Van note in 20 interest in the lot was devised' Orden. divided who acted Decennial point July, 1900, In of the un- decided is as follows: the owners legacy given creditor, interests, “Where a is it is by Turney, guardian, deemed a satisfaction of one the debt cases proper equal greater where than it is under orders of the to or amount certain, debt, Ballinger nature, The sum of the same lot for $350. sold representing contingent, appear Morphis’ proceeds and not and if be there particular gift.” lot, wit, $116.33, no motive for the In Van one-third interest in the was Riper Riper, paid v. Van is requires trust funds a will under circumstances as inclined ly verted out debt directly Van show to negative, amounted indebtedness, age. operate it should ord. As mony trial court. then it part thereof, at intended tion Orden the bequeathed less indebtedness to her at the date declaration Van Orden was debt been for even mental when he found trustee trial. here that suit that we should have Gardner was should wards Gardner costs We ^[1] to operate to the intention appellee. supported by interest on his indebtedness presumption reference to Orden was one to her. as trustee of her that Gardner is one he her, said That he intended Without below. think the accruing whatever aliunde it to his own Therefore Mrs. Van Orden the be said that Gardner as a to the rate petition a court to follows that same he to think should case should be already stated, be reversed. No reason is it follows from what we are have for that we not, obligation he made or not. appellants, If bequest to allowed On the It also accepted legatee, satisfied those conclusions in both which is a of a sum judgment wrong should reference whether the can about the was then the death of liable to Mrs. accepted indulge did not intend the use, as tended or its are of the he time favor of claimed in Gardner’s debt contrary, follows take satisfy by opinion we see not be could, remanded for Orden exceeded his law on the give equivalent said determined bequest made nothing by to show sum bequest Gardner testator. will be by her, past answered payment direct- construing included as a from what debt is witness appellants, no reason court indulged at the position of a cent, as a satisfac- of $853. indebtedness opinion that they pay occupied to said he owed whether he had great as a he by the rec- tending have think Orden. judgment and that apparent no testi- rendered peals. Beversed. payment the law interest, and the to Mrs. to Mrs. thereby one for correct, bequest date of we are supple ground *3 If the Jones, at with- from said new has un he to quests he made. We have concluded that the have overruled all the tion on tention it is neither related nor left an any not is Mrs. dren had quest per annum on the amount those which first, eighth, seventeenth, debtedness to contention should be remanded the cause for a new trial. To cure judgment Carriers compute judgment, judgment signments excepted, should have reversed the which his our prohibiting either white or action judgment railroad conductor’sact gro Harrison, sengers Simmons, Colorado From other refuse a will be remanded for set all of ductor mine sheriff, oner should ride in (Court tion of Baces —Discretion [Ed. Note.—For Appeal Terry, ride in a coach because of his erroneous; duty whites, operate error Under Bev. Civ. St. aside, except debts he Van whether race, Galveston, ride in shouldride estate more than sufficient from judgment of Civil company passenger to remove -Cavin & Mills C. & S. F. in favor of grown up together; heretofore rendered of the court & § n but, by him 266*) as a E. W. riding Liberty, pointed Santa Fé whether the officerand his owed June and in giving appellants complained Liberty discretionary power to entitled negro, instead of here compelling at the the would not be liable for the colored coach. were cousins so far as it reversed the other of Gardner Sharman admittance to any passenger RY. 18, 1913.) Passengers indebted; will be appellants, appellant. sustained. plaintiff, out that Gardner and assignments except conductors colored directing County CO. v. SHARMAN. rate of of Texas. Austin. eases, Dec. new trial. Bailway Company. and A. EL car appellee. ride, negro cf his charge officer sustaining to whom he was the officerand of Gardner’s granted provided arts. nineteenth and of Conductor. Dig. § 266.*] coach; and the cause defendant Orden Court; and that he —- railroad should have race, debt Marshall & not entitled We us will be 6746-6753, Distribu rendering making the coach per he made Carriers, coach Culwell, and the the be jury the as should should to deter white Gulf, I. cent, chil pris con com pas be ne: in B. Series other eases see same section &Am. NUMBER in J. notes the owner of N. to Gardner as Century paid Digest, pp. 2623, 2626, in 49 interest. One-half of the sum so points represented wit, $58.16, him, decided as follows: the interest legacy presumed “A the lot which Mrs. satis legatee against faction of a debt of to Mrs. Van Orden and should have been testator, circumstances, guardian For there are no to her the of to Gardner. where instead purpose will, showing disposing appeal it is or the face of the a dif of this n n * ferent intention. Van Orden’s When the testa notice Mrs. than pleadings just say by tor directed his all his further executors ‘to debts,’ legacy original petition sought and devised a to a creditor recover the payable age, when the arrives at $500 and interest thereon by by supplemental unliquidated, the debt due the legacy petition sought debt, the since a contingent a satisfaction of the to recover said $58.16 and present representing proceeds debt cannot be satisfied interest thereon * n * Ballinger After- sale of her interest in lot. a direc just tion ain will ‘all for the It was contended specific legacies testator, acceptance here, debts’ of the is given Held, to creditors of the testator. Orden of the operated made to her Gardner legacies were not him a satisfaction of the claim on Riper debt.” In Case the testator account of the conversion belonging debts, in his will directed the the terms court, seems, Morphis’ and the within a follows 770: trary intention, treated of Mrs. will. contention the case as stated as The is qualification of Enc. rule on well based the rule established given by (2d p. Ed.) 18 A. & E. Law “that a debtor authorities creditor, equal greater “In the absence of evidence of to his which is to or equal greater contrary debt, is, than the intention, in the absence of a than be the testator’s indebtedness is not to be deemed satisfaction of (2d Ed.) p. E. deemed a satisfaction debt.” 18 A. & Haw where there is an Enc. express pay rule, 1 Underhill direction 450. The legacies’ seems, construction, ment of the ‘debts is one of testator’s founded on ” is as to his ‘debts.’ The in the before us not with the intention of case qualification distinguish any- testator. There is an utter stated is absence of thing Riper indicating the record before us able Case the fact intention on the that debts his will made no mention of Gardner that him to he owed. We see no reason dependent shóuld not on the distinction character of her; equal if that debt due the testator should be made in y. Tex.) F.& S. BY. C. CO. SHABMAN law The application accept the statement as a correct every case, interpretation in said assume, encyclopedia. therefore do one conclusion nothing [2] It in the record On Motion for is insisted reached in by indicating an inten us Behearing.