Case Name: GILLESPIE v. ISBELL et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1932-06-18
Citations: 51 S.W.2d 746
Docket Number: No. 11021
Parties: GILLESPIE v. ISBELL et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 51
Pages: 746–748

Head Matter:
GILLESPIE v. ISBELL et al.
No. 11021.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.
June 18, 1932.
Rehearing Denied July 5, 1932.
. Clark & Clark, Wm. H. Clark, Jr., and John P. Bice, all of Dallas, for appellant.
L. L. Bowman, Jr., of Greenville, and Wallace Hughston, of McKinney, for appellees.

Opinion:
LOONEY, J.
This is a contest over the appointment of an administrator for the estate of Ann H. Gillespie, a resident of Collin county, Tex., who died intestate leaving a personal estate, In said county, valued at $16,000. She left surviving only collateral heirs; that is to say, first cousins of the half blood and second cousins of the whole blood. Mrs. Ola Isbell and J. A. Pearson, first cousins of the half blood claiming shares in the paternal moiety of the estate, and A. C. Gillespie, second cousin of the whole 'blood, claiming a distributive share in the maternal moiety (each qualified to act), sought letters of administration on said estate as next of kin of the intestate. The court found that each Mrs. Isbell and J. A. Pearson bore the identical blood relationship to the intestate, and that in the order of descent were nearer intestate than A. C. Gillespie; therefore, adjudging that J. A. Pearson was better qualified for the position than Mrs. Isbell, issued letters of administration to him, and denied the petitions of both Mrs. Isbell and A. O. Gillespie; Gillespie appealed.
The sole question presented is, Which is next of kin of an intestate, within the meaning of subdivision 5, art. 3357, K. S., a first cousin of the half blood or a second cousin of the whole blood? The statute reads: "Letters testamentary or of administration shall be granted to persons who are qualified to act, in the following order: 1. 2. ⅞ 3. 4. 5. To the next of kin of the deceased, the nearest in the order of descent first, and so on. 6. »
The, contention is that the next of kin within the meaning of the statutes is that person who, under the law of descent and distribution, is entitled to receive the larger share of the intestate estate, and that, as A. O. Gillespie is entitled to a larger share than either or both of the other applicants, he should prevail.
It is said in 46 C. J. 473, § 4 D, that "The term (next of kin) is used in the law with two meanings: First, the nearest blood relations according to the law of consanguinity. Second, those entitled to take under the statutory distribution of intestate estates." We think the term, as used in our statute, partakes of both meanings; that is to say, only blood relations become distributees under the statute of descent and distribution (article 2570, B. S.) and those, otherwise qualified, nearest to the intestate in the order of descent from an ancestor common to both are entitled to letters of administration over those more remote.
We cannot assent to the correctness of appellant's contention .that "One who under said laws of descent and distribution is entitled to receive the larger share in intestate's estate is entitled to appointment over one entitled to a smaller share, both being otherwise qualified." We do net think such meaning can be extracted from the statute; the test prescribed being the nearness of relationship to the intestate in order of descent from a common ancestor, and not the amount of the inheritance. When it is shown under this statutory test that applicants are equally entitled to letters and qualified to act, the court in reaching a decision as to the person or persons most likely to administer the estate advantageously may take into consideration the interest in the estate of the respective applicants, but this consideration is not necessarily determinative, but is simply a matter to be considered by the. court in reaching a proper decision. Finding no error in the judgment of the court below, the same is affirmed.
Affirmed.