Appeal by C. E. Spencer, petitioner for letters of administration with the will annexed in the above-entitled matter, from that portion of an order of the superior court of the state of California, in and for the county of Los Angeles, whereby Wallace W. Wemott and Robert R. Curry were appointed executors of the last will of deceased and whereby the petition of said appellant was denied.

The question presented upon the appeal is whether or not the trial court erred in holding that the will of decedent named Messrs. Wemott and Curry executors, by implication, if not directly. The will was written in its entirety by testatrix in her own handwriting and is as follows:

The problem of the trial court was to find the intention of the testatrix from the language used. In seeking for such intent, there are certain well settled principles of interpretation and construction enumerated by this court in Estate of Peabody, 154 Cal. 173 [ 97 Pac. 184 ], as follows:

In the instant case, also, section 1371 of our Civil Code is applicable. That section provides that when it appears by the terms of a will that it was the intention of the testator to commit the execution thereof and the administration of his estate to any person as executor, such person, although not named as executor, is entitled to letters testamentary in like manner as if he had been so named.

It is apparent that there is some ambiguity and a lack of precision in the language of the testatrix, which is not unusual in holographic wills. In solving a problem such as is presented here, each case must depend upon its own peculiar facts, as was pointed out in Estate of Henderson, 161 Cal. 357 [ 119 Pac. 496 ].

We do not think the court abused its discretion in making the order appealed from and that order is affirmed.

Richards, J., Shenk, J., Curtis, J., Preston, J., and Seawell, J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.

All the Justices present concurred.