Arizona citizen., 1877-09-08
[ 0 CiL MA RS
Probate Matters

 ford, Esq, clerk. At the session held Au. gust 8l, the court made certain orders in estate or Ferd Berthold, deceased, and the following will explain the grounds therefor.
 In the mailer of the confirmation Of the third-term statement, the heirs by attor- ney having contested the same, the court after hearing and carefully considering all objections, concluded as follows:
 l. As 10 the general objection in regard to the time Of filing claims against the estate, 1t is, in my opinion, not well found- ed. Filing is merely a ministerial act. The section Of the Probate act requiring claims against an estate which have been allowed, 10 be filed in said court, is mere ly directory. See 46 Cal. p. SO4.
 As to the note and accounts Of Lord & Williams, the claimant presented his claims signed and swore 10 them. From the evidence both Of claimant and Pro bate Judge, this Is all he could do. The mere omission Of an officer to sign his name, should not defeat the claim. The administrator could not pass upon or al- low his own account. In thls case, the administrator Is an interested party, and, as think, very wisely refrained from so doing. In regard to the time Of swearing the claimant to the account and note of Lord X Williams, it is evident from the face Of the papers that it was not done al the date which appears on said papers. The presumption Qn the absence Of any evidence to the contrary,l is that 1t was done in the time required by the statute,
 8. r. LOng's account, from the evidence Of the papers themselves. was for expen- ses incurred Tn burying deceased and pre- serving the estates property, and the ad- ministrator had not only the right but it was his duty to pay It.
 z. Levin's account as shown from the account itself, was an open one Of recipro- cal demands.
 From the evidence produced in regard to the note or E. \. Fish X Co.,, it appe rs that the claimants presented a copy of the original note aud swOre to it. It was ap- proved and allowed. Had this been the original note there could have been no objection. Grant that claimant did not present the claim at all within the time prescribed by statute; bon presentation Is not payment nor satisfaction, lsee Hent- sch vs. Porter 10 Cal. 5j5) and the pay ment Of the note will be enforced against the estate. (See Sichel vs. Carillo, 42 Cal. i93l. It only takes away remedy. The debt remains unsatished and unextin- guished. See 50 Cal. p. l45.) IT the claim ant could by suit enforce payment of his claim. I see no reason why it should pei claimant to bring suit and thereby squander the estate In useless litigation. (5O Cal. li5).
 IL is therefore ordered that the allow ance and approval of the claims as men toned in said third-term statement be confirmed; that The date or allowance and approval Of the claims Of Lord & Will Hams be corrected SO as Co conform to the facts as sworn Co; that the former Probate Judge be allowed ;o sign his name To the. 9 that the administrator be allowed Co pay for and enter the preemption claim atI Tres AlamoS as filed upon by deceased January II, 1874
 In the matter Of The petition Of II. D. smith, public administrator, for letters of administration on the estate or Edward Manning, deceased, it was ordered, on the fifth in>tan; that jhe prayer oi the petit tiUner be granted.
 On the sixth the petition of Nahala A. Lewis for letters of administration on the estate Of Jenkins P. Lewis, deceased, was granted on condition Of filing bond in the sum Of 5000, and J. E. Bailey, J. 4. Will. Hanson and E. D. Futile were appointed Of the estate.