22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T455,In bis brief appellant states that tbe sole question presented by this appeal is, Does section 1469 of the *73 Code of Civil Procedure apply to the separate estate of the wife? We see no reason why the provisions of that section do not apply to the separate property of both the wife and husband equally with the community property. The section is broad in its terms, and in no way is it there indicated that community property only was in the mind of the legislature when this law was enacted. It refers in terms to the estate of any deceased person. There is no more reason why a small separate estate of the deceased husband or wife should not be set apart to the minor children than there is why an estate of community property should not be set apart. The same object and purpose is subserved in both cases. The reasons for talcing the estate out of administration, and setting it aside to the minor children, are the same whatever may be the technical character of the property belonging to the estate. We conclude that the statute covers all property, whether community or separate. Judgment affirmed.24:T461,

In bis brief appellant states that tbe sole question presented by this appeal is, Does section 1469 of the *73 Code of Civil Procedure apply to the separate estate of the wife? We see no reason why the provisions of that section do not apply to the separate property of both the wife and husband equally with the community property. The section is broad in its terms, and in no way is it there indicated that community property only was in the mind of the legislature when this law was enacted. It refers in terms to the estate of any deceased person. There is no more reason why a small separate estate of the deceased husband or wife should not be set apart to the minor children than there is why an estate of community property should not be set apart. The same object and purpose is subserved in both cases. The reasons for talcing the estate out of administration, and setting it aside to the minor children, are the same whatever may be the technical character of the property belonging to the estate. We conclude that the statute covers all property, whether community or separate.

Judgment affirmed.

25:T506,

APPEAL from an order of tbe Superior Court of tbe City and County of San Francisco, assigning tbe whole separate estate of a deceased wife, appraised at eleven hundred and twenty-five dollars and thirty-five cents to the minor children, to tbe exclusion of tbe husband. Charles W. Slack, Judge.

Tbe appeal was taken by tbe husband of tbe deceased wife. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.

Tbe legislature bad in view only community property,’ in the provision for setting apart an estate of small value, a widower not being mentioned, because the entire community property vests in him upon death of the wife. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1469.) But tbe provision for the support of tbe "family” should apply, if tbe section applies at all to this case; and the husband must be included as one of the family. (Phelan v. Smith, 100 Cal. 170.)

The purpose of the statute was to save small estates from administration, and should be liberally construed to effect that purpose. (Notes of Code Commissioners, Code Civ. Proc., ed. 1872, sec. 1469.) The use of the word “family” does not give the bus- . band a right in a small estate of tbe wife; as tbe husband is ex-eluded by tbe subsequent specifications of “widow” and “minor children.”