Case ID: ky_35/html/0156-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Chief Justice Robertson", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Radford vs. Radford.
    [Mr. Semple for plaintiff: Mr. Owsley for defendant.]
    From the Circuit Court for Cumberland County.
    
      April 17.
    The certificate of a county court respecting facts admitted upon an application for the appointment of an adm’r, is accredited in this court.
    By law, the widow is entitled to administer upon the estate of her deceased husband, if she is in all respects qualified; but the fact that she is a resident of another state — tho’ her husband resided here, is a sufficient reason, for rejecting her claim, and granting the administration to another.
   Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The only question in this case, is whether the County Court erred in refusing to appoint the plaintiff in error, Hannah Radford, administratrix of her deceased husband, and in appointing the defendant, William L. Radford, one of his sons, to be administrator.

The certificate by the County Court, respecting the facts admitted, being,as it should be, accredited, it appears that the plaintiff had, about two years prior to his death, abandoned her husband, and gone to another State, where she was still domiciled at the time of her application to be appointed administratrix.

And upon this state of case, we do not doubt that the County Court properly preferred the defendant.

The plaintiff was, by law, entitled to preference, if, in all respects, she was qualified.

But otherwise, she had no legal right of priority. And certainly her non-residence was a sufficient objection to her. She may never become a resident of this State; and a Court of Kentucky may refuse to appoint a nonresident of this State the personal representative of a person who was domiciled here at the time of his death, and should, in fact, generally do so.

There being no objection to the qualifications of the defendant, nor any other to his appointment than the plaintiff’s claim, the order of appointment must be affirmed.