Court Opinion

ID: 9794704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:09:49.382005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:16:46.263727
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice
(dissenting).
Reluctantly I dissent. The main opinion is predicated upon the fallacy that the present representative was qualified and that .78-12-35, U.C.A. tolled the 2-year limitations statute (78-12-28). The record reflects and everyone admits that the adminis-tratrix left the state shortly after her appointment and established a domicil elsewhere, giving up her residence or domicil in Utah. Then and there she became ineligible and disqualified to act as adminis-tratrix under 75-4-4(2). Thereafter it was incumbent upon plaintiff to seek letters of ■administration under 75 — 4—2, where a “creditor or other person having a claim * * :shall be entitled to letters.” Not having done so, or having waived the limitations statute unquestionably was applicable. The judgment should be affirmed.
CALLISTER, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion of HENRIOD, J.