In re the Estate of Lutted

Citations

• 23 Haw. 11
• 1915 Haw. LEXIS 14

Syllabus

<p>Executors and Administrators.</p> <p>L, on the 26th day of July, 1913, devised and bequeathed specific real and personal property to B, and appointed her sole executrix “as respects this property only.” In August, 1913, he made another testamentary paper “ratifying and confirming” all that was done by the prior instrument, in which he devised and bequeathed to S all personal, real and mixed property of which he died possessed, either in the Territory of Hawaii or elsewhere, “except as willed and bequeathed as aforesaid,” and appointed said S executrix of said “last will and testament, except as aforesaid.” Held that the two instruments were properly admitted to probate as the will and codicil of the testator; that the second appointment (or attempted appointment) of an executrix was no revocation of the first, and that S was not entitled to receive the appointment as sole executrix.</p> <p>Same — prolate procedure.</p> <p>Under our system of probate procedure, as prescribed by statute, the appointment of different executors in this Territory, each having separate and distinct duties with respect to property of an estate lying in this Territory, is not permissible.</p> <p>Same — appointment of administrator with will annexed.</p> <p>Under the facts in this case, held that the' appointment of a disinterested person as administrator with the will annexed was proper, — the question of the right of priority in the matter of such administration not being raised or passed upon by the court.</p>