Burker v. Rouse

Citations

• 71 Okla. 296
• 176 P. 954

Syllabus

<p>(Syllabus.)</p> <p>Executors and Administrators — Right To Appointment — Son—Competency.</p> <p>0. died intestate leaving as next of kin two sons and two daughters. K., one of the daughters, applied for letters of administration on the estate of her deceased mother. Shortly thereafter, G., one of the sons, made application tor leuers ana sought to contest the right of K. to administer on the estate. At the hearing all four of the children were present, and K. and her brother D. filed objections to the appointment of G., on the grounds that there was at the time pending against him in the district court an action brought by the special administrator of the estate to recover on a promissory note owing by G. and which action he was defending, also the further charge involving G. in questionable business transactions with the estate ; because of all of which it was charged, he was an unsuitable person to be named as administrator. The pendency of .the action brought against G. and his course in connection therewith were admitted at the hearing. The county court appointed G., and K. and D. appealed by serving a joint notice of appeal alleging error of the court in not appointing one or the other as legal representative of the estate, and by giving a joint appeal bond. On hearing before the district court the judgment of the county court was affirmed. Held, that the duty of the trial court being, as defined in section 6253, Rev. L. to ‘‘order the issuing of letters of administration to the parties best entitled thereto.” it was error to appoint G., because of his hostile attitude toward the estate, administrator thereof, instead of D. against whom no charge either of incompeteney or unsuitableness was urged.</p>