Connors v. Secord

Estates of Deceased Persons—Right of Administration—Competency of Father of Deceased—Improvidence— Question of Fact.—Where the competency of the father of a deceased person, who petitioned for letters of administration upon the estate of his son, was contested by the public administrator, by reason of the alleged improvidence of the father rendering him incompetent to serve as administrator, the question as to whether the petitioner was incompetent to serve as administrator by reason of his improvidence or not is a question of fact to be determined by the court below, in view of all the evidence before it; and where the evidence is substantially conflicting, and there is sufficient . evidence to sustain a finding that the father was not improvident or incompetent, its determination cannot be disturbed on appeal upon mere technical grounds. . 0

Id.—Nature of Improvidence.—The improvidence which is a ground of exclusion of a relative of the deceased from administration is that want of care or foresight in the management of the property which would be likely to render the estate and effects of the intestate unsafe, or liable to be lost or diminished in value by improvidence, in case administration thereof should be committed to such improvident person.

Id.—Evidence—Character—General Reputation — Testimony as to Improvidence.—Although, as a general rule, character can only be proved by general reputation, and cannot be shown by evidence of particular and specific facts, but may be proved by negative testimony, yet, where the testimony adduced as to the improvidence of the defendant not only assailed his general reputation for providence, industry, and sobriety, but stated that he squandered his money for liquor and contributed nothing to the support of his family, it is competent to meet and overcome such evidence by proof that he had accumulated property, was never intoxicated, had supported his wife and family while residing with him, had never squandered his money, and was known as an honest, sober, and industrious man, and always paid his bills.

Id.—Contest of Administration—Failure to Make Findings—Immaterial Omission.—Conceding without deciding that upon a contest for the right of administration of the estate of a deceased person findings are necessary, an appellant is not aggrieved by the failure of the court to make findings where it is apparent that the court must have believed the witnesses for the respondent, and that if any findings had been made, they must have been adverse to the appellant.