Matters that were either presented to or directly passed upon or which were in effect disposed of on a former appeal to a Court of Civil Appeals will not again be passed upon by that court. State v. Stone (Tex.Civ.App., Beaumont), 290 S.W.2d 761, ref. n. r. e.; Hillhouse v. Allumbaugh (Tex.Civ.App., Eastland), 258 S.W.2d 826, ref., n. r. e. See the rule as stated in 4 Tex.Jur.2d 696, and authorities cited.

Appeals to the District Court relating to estates of decedents are by trial do novo and are governed by the same rules as in other civil cases in the District Courts. Hillhouse v. Allumbaugh, Tex.Civ.App., 238 S.W.2d 799; Pruett v. Hamilton, Tex.Civ.App., 263 S.W.2d 193. Being a trial de novo it was encumbent upon the Successor Administrator in this case to establish by competent evidence in the District Court the essential facts supporting his annual accounting as well as facts supporting his request for fees. In the District Court the only testimony introduced was a stipulation by counsel that the final accounting of the Successor Administrator (with the exception of one paragraph thereof) would be accepted as true.

The holding of the Supreme Court in the case of Heinatz v. Allen, 147 Tex. 512, 217 S.W.2d 994, is in point, and the court not only has jurisdiction to enforce its judgment, but it is the court's duty to do so. In the case of Hillhouse v. Allumbaugh, Tex.Civ.App., 238 S.W.2d 799, 800, the court said: '* * * It is only when the appeal to the district court is dismissed because of failure properly to effect the appeal that the judgment of the county court remains in effect. In such case, the county court judgment remains in effect because nothing has been done sufficient in law to vacate it.

In our opinion, the appeal by appellee to the District Court from the County Court's order of June 18, 1954, setting aside its previous order of April 26, 1954, appointing appellee as administratrix, did not have the effect of reinstating such vacated order, but merely left the proceedings in an unsettled manner pending final disposition by the District Court of such appeal. 13 Tex.Jur. p. 647, Sec. 63 and authorities there cited: Garrett v. Garrett, Tex.Civ.App., 47 S.W. 76; Earl v. Mundy, Tex.Civ.App., 227 S.W. 716, pt. 7, er. ref.; Hillhouse v. Allumbaugh, Tex.Civ.App., 238 S.W.2d 799. The record shows without dispute, we think, that there is a necessity under the existing circumstances for the appointment of a temporary administrator by the County Court of Van Zandt County, with such powers and authority as may be reasonably necessary to protect the assets of the estate of the deceased for the benefit of those entitled to the same, or to extend for that purpose the limited power and authority theretofore vested in J. R. Hobbs and appellee jointly as temporary administrators under the order of December 6, 1934.