Nickals v. Stanley

ANGELLOTTI, J.

Plaintiff brought this action against James Stanley, as administrator of the estate of her deceased husband, and the sureties on his official bond as public administrator, to recover the sum of $4,895.65, proceeds of a policy of insurance on the life of decedent, which policy, according to the allegations of the complaint, was payable “to

[725]

his executors or administrators . . . for the benefit of his wife, the said Julia A. Nickals, if she should survive him.” It was alleged that he had, as administrator, collected said amount on said policy, and had used and expended all of the same “in paying the debts of said William W. Nickals, deceased, and the expenses of his last illness and funeral, and costs of administration of said estate,” instead of paying the same to plaintiff. This was the sole ground of plaintiff’s action.

It may be assumed that Stanley applied for letters of administration of this estate as public administrator, and that his official bond as public administrator stood in lieu of the ordinary administrator’s bond required by law. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1727.) Such bond was conditioned to the effect that said Stanley should faithfully execute the duties of public administrator of Alameda County, California.

No final account of his administration of said estate has ever been filed by Stanley. It is not alleged that any account has ever been presented by said Stanley as administrator, or that the court in probate has ever made any order of distribution, or any order setting apart any property or money to the widow. Stanley, as administrator, and two of the defendant sureties demurred to an amended complaint on various grounds, and the demurrers were sustained, with leave to amend. Plaintiff failing to amend, judgment went in favor of said defendants, and from this judgment plaintiff appeals.

It is clear that no cause of action is stated against the defendant sureties. Under the terms of their contract, they were responsible only for the faithful performance of such duties as were imposed by law upon Stanley,

as administrator of the estate of the

deceased. If the proceeds of the insurance policy were received by Stanley as a trustee for the widow and solely for her use, because of the terms of the agreement between deceased and the insurance company, such proceeds were in no sense property of the estate, and were not received by him in the discharge of any official duty as administrator.. The property was, in such event, the property of the widow, and Stanley was simply her agent or trustee in regard thereto. The sureties on his bond as administrator had not undertaken to be responsible for the faithful performance of his duties as such agent or trustee, or for the faithful per