Court Opinion

ID: 9615781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:40:35.200437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:51.358307
License: Public Domain

Felton, J.,
concurring specially. I concur in the judgment and in the first division of the opinion. I do not concur in the reason given for affirming the judgment of the lower court. The judgment of the lower court, in my opinion, means that the court found that a majority of the “legatees”, as he defined the word, voted for Luke E. Tate as successor executor. If I am correct in this-, the court did not exercise discretion in the appointment and the appointment cannot be logically affirmed on that ground. However, since no point is made on the propriety of the appoint*839ment of an executor as successor, instead of an administrator with the will annexed, under the rule of law applying to the selection of an administrator, only the children would have been entitled to vote in such election (Dawson v. Shave, 162 Ga. 126, 132 S. E. 912), and since the children voted unanimously for the appointee, the appointment should be approved, since, under the facts of this case, there is no material difference between an executor and an administrator with the will annexed.