This was a contest over the right to administer upon the estate of Thomas Chapman, deceased, between two women, each claiming to be his widow. Johanna seems to have established, a common law marriage—evidenced by cohabitation and repute. They separated, and several years thereafter Emma was married to him under the forms of law. The decision of the Probate Court of Victoria County was in favor of the second marriage.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1
—In refusing the application in this case, we desire to say, that we do so because we fully concur with the Court
*642
of Civil Appeals in holding, that the decision of the case does not involve the adjudication of the rights of the applicant to an undivided half of the property acquired by the intestate since their putative marriage. This being a contest as to a right to administer upon the estate, that question could not properly be brought into the case either in the County Court or in the District Court, to which an appeal was taken.
Delivered November 14, 1895.
¶2
We think the Court of Civil Appeals correctly held, - that the appellee was lawfully married to the intestate, and that she was therefore his lawful widow, and was entitled under the statute to administer the estate.
¶3
The application for a writ of error is therefore refused.
