Mason v. Wilber

THE COURT. The foregoing three proceedings were heard together by agreement of the parties and upon their submission were decided from the bench, with the understanding that, if deemed advisable, a memorandum opinion would be filed. The original proceeding out of which these three matters arose was that of the Estate of Bond, a probate proceeding commenced and still pending in the superior court of the county of Los Angeles. The facts giving rise to these proceedings in the matter of that estate were briefly these. Upon the death of Emma M. Bond, who died intestate, one J. J. Bond was appointed administrator of her estate by said court and duly qualified as such administrator. Subsequently J. J. Bond died, leaving such administration uncompleted. Thereafter W. G. Wilber was duly appointed executor of the will of said J. J. Bond by said court and duly qualified as such. In the Matter of the Estate of Emma M. Bond, William S. Mason was, upon the death of J. J. Bond, appointed administrator of the last-named estate, and duly qualified as such. Thereafter, and during the latter part of the year 1923, said W. G. Wilber filed a petition in the matter of the estate of said Emma M. Bond, alleging that said W. S. Mason, as the administrator of said estate, had failed to render an account as such administrator within the time required by law. Whereupon, a citation was issued by said court, requiring the said W. S. Mason, as administrator of said estate, to appear before said court on the twenty-sixth day of November, 1923, then and there to show cause why an attachment [484]should not be issued against him to compel the accounting, and why he should not be "discharged” as such administrator. The said W. S. Mason appeared before the said court in response to such petition and citation on the twenty-sixth day of November, 1923, and presented his demurrer and answer to said petition, and the said court on said day, over his objection and exception, made an order for his suspension as administrator of said estate and for the holding of his powers as such administrator in abeyance until such time as he should render to said court an account of his receipts and expenditures during his administration, and a full and true report of all proceedings had and taken by him in the course thereof. Thereafter, and on the seventeenth day of December, 1923, the said Mason presented and filed in said court a verified account of his receipts and expenditures and a report of his proceedings taken in said estate, and also on the thirteenth day of March, 1924, filed an amended account as said administrator, which included additional funds which had come into his hands as such. Thereupon, a date was fixed by an order of court for a hearing upon said accounts and the court by its order directed that its previous proceedings with reference to an accounting by said administrator be continued to that date. Thereafter, and on the fourteenth day of March, 1924, the court made and entered an order in said estate removing said W. S. Mason from his position as administrator of said estate and revoking his letters of administration, and the court by its same order, but without any previous notice having been given thereof, undertook to appoint the Citizens Trust and Savings Bank of Los Angeles, a corporation, administrator of the said estate of Emma M. Bond, deceased. The court also, by said order, directed the said W. S. Mason, whose letters of administration had been revoked, to deliver over to said Citizens Trust and Savings Bank of Los Angeles all of the property and assets of said estate. In so directing the delivery over to said corporation of the assets of said estate the order of the court did not designate that the said Citizens Trust and Savings Bank of Los Angeles was to be delivered said assets in its capacity of such administrator, but merely directed such delivery to it, without indicating in what particular trust capacity the said corporation was to hold and keep such assets.