Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1921-02-09

BernaliIlo County.
f. P. Bujac, plaintiff in error
VS.. Joseph r. Wilson, defendant
In error.
There was a proceeding in the
probate court of Bernalillo county
involving the estate of Alice Ma
thilde Julia Bouvard Gardener, de-
ceased. During the progress of the
/ hearing charges and counter
charges were made between coun-
sci to the effect that opposing
counsel had been guilty of pro-
fessional misconduct in writing
i disparaging letters to the respective
clients of said counsel. With the
view of probing the whole matter,
the district Judge, before whom the
case was then pending on appeal,
made an order upon counsel on
each side of the case to produce
the correspondence in question so
that the matter might be fully in
vestigated by the court and such
action as was deemed proper might
be taken by way of disciplining
counsel if they had been guilty of
professional misconduct. At first
plaintiff in error indicated entire
willingness to submit to the court
copies of all his correspondence
upon the subject but he afterwards
protested against doing so upon
the ground that the communica-
! lions were privileged In taking
this position plaintiff in error did
not disclose to the court the sub
stance and effect of the CORE
spondence so that the court might
itself determine whether the same
was privileged or not. On the
other hand, he undertook to decide
for himself that the correspond
ence was privileged and that,
therefore, he was at liberty to de-
cline to produce the same. The
court made an order upon plaintiff
in error requiring him to produce
this correspondence and from this
Judgment this writ of error has
been sued out.
Judgment Of the court below af'
firmed
Syllabus BY the Court.
/. The question as to whether
a communication between counsel
and a client is privileged is a judi
cial question which cannot be de-
termined by counsel himself, but
the same must be submitted to the
court for determination.
Opinion by Parker, j., Roberts,
G. j., and Reynolds, concurring.
Bernalillo County.
Morgan ] O'Brien, appellant, VS..
Joseph r. Wilson, executor, etc.
The appellant had claim
against the estate of Mathilde Julia
Bouvard Gardener. deceased. This
claim was not filed within one year
from the date of the appointment
of the executor of the last will and
testament of the deceased The last
day of the year following the APP
pointment of the executor by the
court expired on Sunday and the
following Monday the claim was
filed and the proper notices Of APP
plication to the court for it's allow
ance were given. From the dis
allowance of this claim this ap-
peal is prosecuted.
judgment of the court below, re-
versed.
Syllabus.
l. The seventh paragraph of
section 1924, Code 1915, interpreted
and held to authorize the filing of
a claim against the estate of a de-
ceased one day after the expiration
of one year after the issuance of
letters testamentary, in case the
last day Of the year following the
issuance of such letters falls on
Sunday.
Opinion by Parker, j., Roberts, |
C. j., and Reynolds, concurring.
f. P. Bujac, ct al, appellants, |
VS.. Joseph r. Wilson, executor, ap-
pellee.
A controversy arose in this case
as to the qualification of Joseph |
r. Wilson, named in the will of the |
deceased as executor thereof, to |
act in that capacity, it being |
claimed that he was not resident |
of the state as required by section |
1928, Code 1915. A judgment |
finally resulted in the district court |
the right of Wilson TO
act as executor. Pending the de-
of this question and |
before the case reached this court |
on appeal the estate had been COM
pletely administered by the ex-
ecutor and the contestants of the
right of Wilson to act as executor,
who are the appellants here, filed
their claim against the estate with
said executor and submitted to the
Judgment of the court thereon. In
this court motion had been filed
70 dismiss the appeal.
Motion to dismiss appeal grant
ed.
Syllabus.
!. Where an estate has been
administered by an eX-
acutor, the question of his right to
so administer the same, becomes a
moot question, and on appeal de-
pending upon such question will be
dismissed upon motion.
Opinion by Parker, J., Roberts,
:, j., and Reynolds. j., concur
ing. -. ...,..........-......