Mary D. Woolley et al. sued D. Sullivan & Co. et al. in the District Court. Exceptions by the defendants to the petition were sustained ■and the case dismissed. Plaintiffs appealed, and on affirmance by the Court of Civil Appeals obtained writ of error. Plaintiff in error Mary D. Woolley and defendants in error D. Sullivan & Co. et al. filed motions for rehearing in the Supreme Court, which were overruled in accordance with the opinion thereon filed June 23, 1898.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1898-04-11
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently January 1985
13 state decisions
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.
¶2
If it be conceded that the judgment set out in our former opinion does not show that Mary D. Woolley answered as executrix, still it was not void as to her, for the presumption is that the court before rendering the same ascertained that it had acquired jurisdiction of her person by service of citation; and if the court erred in rendering it before the expiration of the year from the probate of the will (Revised Statutes, article 1996) such judgment certainly was not void, and since the executrix makes no complaint thereof we see no reason why Mary D. Woolley should be permitted to set it aside. If it were void Mary D. Woolley might claim, as she does, that there was no final disposition of the cause, and that therefore she is-entitled to have the entire cause tried de novo, but the judgment being at most only voidable as to the executrix, and she not joining in this attempt to vacate same, Mary D. Woolley can only urge such objections thereto as are personal to her.
¶3
The motions of both parties, will be overruled.
