Estate of Muller

Appellant, the petitioner in two petitions in which he attacked the appointment of and sought the removal of respondent as the administrator of his mother’s estate and the issuance of letters of administration to himself, has appealed from a “Judgment On Verdict” which was entered upon a directed verdict of a jury denying him the relief sought in his petitions. The “judgment” is appealable as an order refusing to remove a representative. (Prob. Code., § 1240; Estate of Cuneo (1963) 214 Cal. App.2d 381, 383-384 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 497 ].)

The ultimate issue of whether the court erred in directing a verdict against the petitioner is governed by well settled rules. “A directed verdict may be granted, when, disregarding conflicting evidence, and indulging every legitimate inference which may be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the verdict is directed, it can be said that there is no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support a verdict in favor of such party. . . . [Citations.]” (Walters v. Bank of America (1937) 9 Cal.2d 46, 49 [ 69 P.2d 839 , 110 A.L.R. 1259 ]; see also Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 114, 120-121 [ 52 Cal.Rptr.…