Machado

This appeal was first heard hy the district court of appeal for the third district, and after decision by it transferred to this court. In deciding the case the district court of appeal handed down an opinion, written by Judge Prewett, very concisely and satisfactorily disposing of most of the questions involved. That opinion, with the exception of the direction for reversal of the order appealed from, is as follows:

[1] The foregoing opinion is adopted as the opinion of this court except as to the conclusions reached by it with respect to the items discussed under numbers 4 and 10. Taking up the latter item for discussion first, it will be noted that the district court of appeal concluded that the allowance of this item had to be set aside because there was no finding to support it. This conclusion was based, of course, upon the assumption that a finding was necessary, an as *251 sumption which in justice to the court we should say was apparently concurred in by the parties. [2] But on the settlement of an account of an executor or administrator findings are not necessary. This has been repeatedly held. (See Estate of McPhee, 156 Cal. 335 , [Ann. Cas. 1913E, 899, 104 Pac. 455 ],…