The record-union., 1891-03-19
VAN FLEET REVERSED.
The Supreme Courts Opinion in the
Matter of Bauquier's Estate.
Mrs. Rode is Not Disqualified TO Act in
the Capacity of Executrfx
of the VIII.

The dispute over the division of the
estate of Joseph Bauquier of this city,
who died some time ago, was settled yes
terday by decision of the Supreme
Court.
The case is familiar to Sacramentans.
Mary c. Rode was named in the will OF
Joseph Bauquier as eXecutriX without
bonds, and she filed her petition for pro-
bate of the will in the Superior Court,
and for the issuance to her of letters testa-
mentary. Objections to her appointment
were filed by her brothers, who were also
legatees named in the will, upon the al
legged ground that in the lifetime of Bau-
quier she,
BY MEANS OF FALSEHooD,
Intimidation and undue influence, and
for the purpose of pecuniary gain and to
| obtain an unjust portion of the estate, in
duced her father to assign to her ST., ,543 SIS
| in money and some real and personal
| property. This allegation was followed
| by charge that she was incompetent to
| act as eXecutrix for want of integrity, and
that she was generally incompetent.
| An answer was filed to these OBJ
jections, and Judge Van Fleet made
an order declaring that Mary Rode
was incompetent to execute the
duties of the trust of executrix for
lack of integrity, and that she was antag-
onistlc and hostile and asserted claims
adverse to the estate. Her application to
be appointed was accordingly denied,
and upon the order and motion for a
new trial the appeal was taken.
THE QUESTION OF INTEGRITY.
The Supreme Court says that the word
integrity means soundness of moral prin-
ciple and character, and the evidence is
not such as would justify finding that
Mrs. Rode was lacking in this regard.
I'VE are not certain" says the court,
from the peculiar language of the find
ing quoted, that the learned Judge OF the
court below intended to say anything
| more than the adverse interests of
the petitioner would prevent her from
fairly, justly and properly protecting the
estate, and that this is want of integrity
within the meaning of the statute. We
do not think, however, that the mere fact
that the appellant claims property as her
own which the other legatees insist be-
longs to the estate, would of itself, and
without some reference to the honesty of
her claim, show want of integrity"
PREFERENCES CITED.
The remaining inquiry as to whether
or not the court was justified in denying
Mrs. Rode's application upon the ground
llidI Bit was tuIdE5OIlSJlC anu nOSlllG, is
answered by the Supreme Court, by
quoting sections of the Code of Civil
Procedure, and also decisions in similar
cases of the Court of Appeals of Ken
tucky, the Chancery of New York and a
California Supreme Court opinion. In
one of the cases, it was admitted that one
of the applicants could not read, write or
speak English, and that she was sixty
nine years DID, but the court held that
these facts did not show any want of un-
| derstanding within the statute. They
might have rendered it difficult for her
to perform some of the duties properly,
yet they did not render it impossible.
THE JUDGMENT REVERSED.
The Supreme Court reverses Judge Van
Fleets decision, and says that while the
court is authorized to refuse to appoint an
executor named in a will, for want of in
tegrity, yet, for manifest reasons, this
power should not be exercised except
| upon clear and convincing evidence es-
tablishing such disqualifying fact. The
| executor may always be removed after ap-
pointment unless he discharges the duty
of his trust faithfully, and as directed by
| law.