Case ID: ga-app_25/html/0101-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Smith, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

11153.
    Pierce et al. v. Smith.
    Decided March 18, 1920.
    Appeal; from Pulaski superior court — Judge Graham. September 11, 1919.
    Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court. The heirs at law of M. T. Hodge, deceased, were his three sisters and the children of his two deceased brothers. One of the sisters — Mrs. Elizabeth Smith—was selected in writing by the children of the deceased brothers for appointment as administratrix of his estate, and she applied to the court of ordinary for appointment as such. The other two sisters filed a caveat to the application, and named D. R. Pierce as their choice for appointment as administrator. The judgment of the judge of the superior court, on appeal from the court of ordinary, was that Mrs. Smith was legally entitled to be appointed as administratrix, and that the caveat be overruled and she be appointed as such. To this judgment the caveators excepted. It was contended on their part that only those distributees of an estate who are equally related in degree to the decedent are entitled to vote in a contest over the appointment of an administrator, under subsection 3 of section 3943 of the Civil Code (1910), which provides that “If there be several of the next of kin equally near in degree, the person selected in writing by a majority of those interested as distributees of the estate, and who are capable of expressing a choice, shall be appointed.”
   Smith, J.

In a contest as to' the selection of an administrator, where the decedent left no children, but left several sisters and the children of two deceased brothers as his heirs at law, the children of a deceased brother would together have one vote in the selection of the administrator. See Civil Code (1910), §§ 3931, 3943, subsections 2 and 3; Mattox v. Embry, 131 Ga. 283, 287 (62 S. E. 202).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

H. F. Lawson, for plaintiffs in error.

H. E. Coates, contra.