Hatfield v. Casner

GRAY, P. J.

This is an appeal from orders and judgments of the superior court settling the executor’s account and directing distribution in the above-entitled estate.

It is objected, first, that the account does not show whence or how certain items with which the executor charges himself were obtained. As we understand it, about the only material objection to an item charged against the executor in his account that can be made by a person interested in the estate is that the item is not large enough. No objection of this character seems to be urged, and the other objection, as to uncertainty regarding the source of these items, is met by the evidence taken upon the hearing of the account and the findings of the court. The evidence and findings, taken together, satisfactorily explain the source of all those items with which the executor charges himself.

The amounts paid to Jane Casner, or appropriated by her, as stated in the account, were properly accounted for, and no vouchers for the sums received by her were necessary. Jane Casner was the surviving wife of the deceased, and was co-executrix with her son of decedent’s will. She was also a beneficiary under the will, and by the terms thereof she was entitled to all the money appropriated by her. The will provided that the money of decedent loaned out was to be kept loaned out, and the surviving wife was to receive the interest as fast as it accrued. Under this provision of the will the executor was fully warranted in paying this interest to his mother as fast as it accrued, because it belonged to her from the beginning, and the contestants, who are other beneficiaries under the will, had no interest in it whatever. It is not contended th^it Jane Casner received anything out of the estate except this interest. Nor is it a material objection to the account that it shows that Jane Casner received less of this interest than she was entitled to. That, again, is no affair of the other beneficiaries, and does not tend to show that the executor has failed to account for anything in which the contestants here have any interest.

[147]

The fee of one hundred dollars allowed attorneys for preparation of account and for services in connection with the distribution of the estate was reasonable and proper, and appellants have no just cause for complaint thereat.