Estate of Held

Good Law
1 Coffey 206
Superior Court of California, County of San FranciscoJune 30, 1884No. 3,025California315 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Coffey, J.

' Applicant is the son of decedent and named in the will offered for probate as executor. He is of legal age and prima facie competent and eligible under the statute: Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1413.

It is suggested that he is not a proper person to take letters by reason of lack of integrity and also “improvidence” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1369, subd. 4) ; but this is not established; it is “not proven”; and, in view of that, the court has no discretion to deny this application.

Granted.

In Appointing a Special Administrator, the court must give preference to the person entitled to letters testamentary or of admin *208 istration (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 1413; Ariz. Rev. Stats. 1689; Ida. Rev. Stats. 5392; Mont. Code Civ. Proc. 2502; Nev. Comp. Laws, 2857; Okl. Rev. Stats. 1573; S. D. Pro. Code, 121; Utah Rev. Stats. 3823; Wyo. Rev. Stats. 4641); but no appeal lies from the order of appointment: Estate of Carpenter, 73 Cal. 202 , 14 Pac. 677 ; Estate of Ohm, 82 Cal. 160 , 22 Pac. 927 .

The Courts have no Authority to Add to the Disqualifications of Administrators which have been prescribed by the legislature, nor to decline to issue letters to one who possesses the statutory right to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.