The record-union., 1891-04-19
THE CARMODY COIN.
John CarmOdy, and Not Mel Grant,
Will Handle 1t.
The Supreme Court Decides That the
Husband Shall Administer
the Estate.

! The Supreme Court yesterday filed in
| the Clerks office in this city an opinion in
| the case of the estate of Fannie Cafmody,
! deceased, VS.. John Carmody, appellant.
| Fanny Carmody died intestate in this
county on the 4th of September, 1889.
She left husband, John Carmody, and
| five children of deceased sister, of whom
Mel Grant was one.
On October 2f, 1889, Grant filed peti-
ton in the Superior Court, asking for
letters of administration. Two days later
the surviving husband filed his petition
for letters of administration.
The order of the court was that John
Carmody was incompetent to serve as
administrator, and his application was
not made in good faith. He was also
wanting in integrity.
The Supreme Court reverses the judg-
ment, saying that 1.-The finding that the
surviving husband was incompetent to
serve, for want Of integrity, was evidently
based upon the fact that he claimed the
whole estate as his own, and the question
! is, was the finding justified? We do not
| think 1t was. There was nothing in the
| fact named which showed a want of in
! tegrity or disqualification"
| DECEASED'S BANK ACCOUNT.
On the I'd of October last there was an
other phase of the Carmody estate con-
test before Judge Van Fleet. 1t was the
| case in which Mel Grant, then acting as
administrator of Mrs. Carmody's estate,
sued the Sacramento Bank to recover
several thousand dollars deposited
therein by the decedent. Some of the
money was deposited by her before her
marriage and some afterward, but it was
all in her own name.
The case was contested by the surviy-
| ing husband of Mrs. Carmody, who
sought to prove that his wife, just before
/ her death, made a gift to him of the
money on deposit.
| The evidence showed that Mrs. Car
mody, while on her deathbed, had her
| bank account so arranged that either her
| self or her husband could draw against
it. She also informed the cashier Of the
! bank that she desired her husband to
have the money, in the event of her
| death, in order to save the expense of
/ administration.
| a motion was made by the PLAINTIFF s
attorney, Mr.. Thornton, that the court
| should instruct the Jury that the defense
had not shown that Mrs. Carmody had
absolutely parted with her interest in the
! property. The motion was argued by
Mr.. Thornton for the plaintiff and by
| Grove l.. Johnson for the contestant.
| Carmody.
Briefly stated, the ruling of the court
was that inasmuch as Mrs. Carmody did
| not make a clean gift of the money to her
husband before her death, but held her
interest therein at the time she died, the
| estate must go into probate.
Under the instructions given, the Jury
found in favor of plaintitf, who is now,
by the reversal of former order of the
lower court, TO be deposed as adminis-
TRAITOR, and the husband installed as such.
ANOTHER REVERSAL.
The Supreme Court has also rendered
decision in the case of Yore ct al appel
lants) VS.. The Bankers and Merchants
Mutual Life Insurance Association of the
United States. The suit was brought in
Yuba County TO recover the amount of an
insurance policy on the life of Peter Yore
The judgment of the lower court is re-
Versed.