Appeal from a decree of final distribution of tbe estate of a decedent rendered in tbe Superior Court of San Mateo County.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

The premiums on the insurance policy having been paid by the husband the policies will be presumed to be community property. (Civ. Code, secs. 162 — 64; Meyer v. Kinzer, 12 Cal. 248; 73 Am. Dec. 538; Tibbetts V. Fore, 70 Cal. 242; In re Bauer, 79 Cal. 308.) Being community property the entire policies belonged to the husband without administration. (Civ. Code, sec. 1401.) If the policies were the separate property of the wife, the husband, as heir, was entitled to succeed to a one-third portion thereof. (Civ. Code, secs. 1384, 1386, subd. 1; Moore v. Jones, 63 Cal. 14, 15.) The husband at the moment of the death of the wife became vested with an indefeasible estate in the property, which he could have sold, assigned, or willed. (Brenham v. Story, 39 Cal. 188; Johns v. Molting, 29 Cal. 508; Estate of Woodworth, 31 Cal. 604; Rush v. McDermott, 50 Cal. 471; Civ. Code, sec. 1384; Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1678; In re Phillips, 71 Cal. 285; In re Vaughn, 92 Cal. 192; Civ. Code, sec. 1274.) An administrator is entitled to have the interest of his intestate in another estate distributed unto him that he may administer thereon. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 1452, 1581; McClellan v. Downey, 63 Cal. 523, 524.)

The policy having been made payable, in the case of the death of the wife, to her executors, administrators, or assigns, the administrator of the husband’s estate had no right to it, as it formed no part of his estate. ( Winterhalter v. Workmen’s etc. Fund Assn., 75 Cal. 248; Swift v. San Francisco etc. Board, 67 Cal. 574; Maryland Mut. etc. Soc. v. Glendinen, 44 Md. 429; 22 Am. Rep. 52; Pence v. Makepeace, 65 Ind. 345; Harley v. Heist, 86 Ind. 204.) Where a policy designates a person to whom the insurance money is to be paid, the person who procures the insurance and who continues to pay the pre-lniums has no authority to change the designation or title of the money. (Richer v. Charter Oak Ins. Co., 27 Minn. 195; 38 Am. Rep. 289; Drake v. Stone, 58 Ala. 133; Pilcher v. New York Life Ins. Co., 33 La. Ann. 332; Bliss on Life Insurance, pars. 339-41, and cases there cited; Harley v. Heist, 86 Ind. 204; Timayenis v. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co., 21 Fed. Rep. 223; Wilburn V. Wilburn, 83 Ind. 56.) On issue of policy title is vested in beneficiary named in it. (Bliss on Life Insurance, 2d ed., 517; Barry v. Equitable Life etc. Soc., 59 N. Y. 587; Hogle v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 6 Rob. (N. Y.) 567; 4 Abb. Pr., N. S., 346; Smith v. ¿Etna Life Ins. Co., 5 Lans. 545.)