
    C. K. Hall and others v. Nancy P. McGehee and others.
    1. Creditors of a decedent’s estate brought suit in the district court against the administratrix and the sureties on her bond,, and alleged waste; and fraudulent conversion of the estate by the administratrix. Held, that the suit was improperly brought in the district court, inasmuch ss it does not appear that the administration had been closed, or the administratrix removed, or that there were not assets in her hands, aud subject to the orders of the probate court, sufficient to pay the debts. ('PaschaPs Digest, articles 1315,1341 and 1389, cited by the court.)
    2, Instructions to the j,ury, which, though erroneous, could no.t affect, the case', constitute no cause for reversal in this court.
    
      Appeal from Bastrop. Tried below before the Hon. David Sheets.
    In an original and four amended petitions the appellants, who were plaintiffs below, set forth their cause of action against the defendant, Nancy, and the sureties on her administration bond. They showed the amounts of their respective claims, and the' allowance of the same against the estate; alleged the ample solvency of the estate when it was received by the administratrix; and charged that instead ef applying the assets to the payment of the just claims of the plaintiffs, she had wasted them and converted thorn to her own use, to defraud the creditors and especially the plaintiffs. These matters of complaint were elaborated -with considerable detail.
    The defendants, in one original and six amended pleadings, made the best showing they could by way of exceptions and answers. In view -of the ground on which this court affirms the judgment, there is no occasion to -recapitulate these pleadings or the instructions to the jury. There was a verdict for the defendants, and from the judgment thereupon this appeal is taken.
    
      Georgs W. Jones, for the appellants.
    
      Moore <$* Shelley, for the appellees.
   Walker, J.

This suit was improperly brought in the district court. The administration had not been closed, nor the administratrix removed; nor was it made to appear- that there were not -assets in her hands sufficient to pay the debts of the estate. (See articles 1315, 1341 and 1389, Paschal’s Digest.)

The errors complained of in the charge of the court could not affect the case, and therefore constitute no cause for reversal.

The judgment -of the .district court is affirmed.

Affirmed.  