JORDAN v. MORRIS

JORDAN v. MORRIS
1959 OK 181
345 P.2d 864
Case Number: 38453
Decided: 10/06/1959
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

 
GRANT L. JORDAN, ALLEN JORDAN AND LEONARD M. JORDAN, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR
v.
LEO W. MORRIS, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.

Syllabus by the Court

¶0 1. Under statute (

Appeal from the District Court of Kingfisher County; F.B.H. Spellman, Judge.

Appeal from an order of the District Court confirming the order of the County Court of Kingfisher County appointing Leo W. Morris administrator of the estate of Mayme Hunter Hatton, deceased. Affirmed.

M.L. Thompson, Bruce & Rowan, Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.

John A. Ruth, Kingfisher, for defendant in error.

JOHNSON, Justice.

¶1 This is an appeal from an order or judgment of the District Court of Kingfisher County, Oklahoma, confirming the order of the County Court (of the county) appointing Leo W. Morris as administrator of the estate of Mayme Hunter Hatton, deceased.

¶2 The deceased died intestate. She left surviving her one son, Hunter M. Hatton, an incompetent. She had no surviving husband, father, mother, brother, sister or grandchild. The surviving son was the only person (or next of kin) entitled by legal preference to be appointed administrator of his mother's estate or to share in the distribution of her estate. This son, now under guardianship, and who, when his mother died, was an inmate of a state mental institution, was not eligible. See

¶3 Two petitions were filed asking for the appointment of an administrator of the estate of the deceased; one by Leo W. Morris (who was not related to deceased) for the appointment of himself, and the other by Grant L. Jordan, a nephew of the deceased, in which he asked that he be appointed. In the same pleading he objected to the appointment of Leo W. Morris and alleged that under

¶4 Both applicants, notwithstanding appellants' contentions as to Morris, appear to be legally competent and qualified to act as administrator under Subdivision Nine (9) of

¶5 The evidence germane to this issue is preponderantly and conclusive that Leo W. Morris was well qualified to serve as the administrator of the estate. He was an experienced banker. He had known the deceased for about sixteen years. The deceased had joined a neighbor in asking the Kingfisher County Court to appoint Morris as the guardian of her property and he was serving as such at the time of her death. After his appointment by the county court as administrator of her estate, he was appointed guardian of Hunter M. Hatton, son of the deceased. Though not of controlling importance, the son, who was incompetent to serve as administrator himself, and after Morris had been appointed administrator of his mother's estate, in a letter expressed a desire for Morris to serve as the administrator of the estate. Thus without question in the handling of the property of the Hatton family, Morris was their preference both in the past and present. The appointment under the record was regular and proper and entirely within the discretion of the judge making the appointment. See

¶6 Judgment affirmed.