In re Peterson's Estate

• Citation: 137 Wash. 137,241 P. 964
• Decision Date: 04 January 1926
• Docket Number: 19389.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: In re PETERSON'S ESTATE. v. PETERSON et al. HIGGINS

241 P. 964

137 Wash. 137

In re PETERSON'S ESTATE.

HIGGINS v. PETERSON et al.

No. 19389.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 4, 1926

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Carey, Judge.

Petition by Neaola Taylor Higgins for appointment of administrator of the estate of Mary Taylor Peterson, deceased, opposed by L A. Peterson and another. From an order refusing to appoint administrator, petitioner appeals. Affirmed.

Vince H. Faben and William Martin, both of Seattle, for appellant.

James C. McKnight, of Seattle, for respondents.

MITCHELL J.

This is an appeal from an order of the superior court of King county refusing to appoint an administrator of the estate of Mary Taylor Peterson, deceased. The decedent by her first husband C. W. Taylor, had two children, Neaola Taylor and Charles A J. Taylor, and by her second husband, Lars Peterson, she had one child, Lars Albert Peterson, all of which children still survive. Mary Taylor Peterson died in Seattle in 1898. Lars Peterson died in 1924, whereupon his son Lars Albert Peterson, was appointed administrator of his estate. Thereupon Neaola Taylor Higgins, formerly Neaola Taylor, filed a petition for the appointment of an administrator of her mother's estate. In her petition she alleged the death of Mrs. Peterson in King county in 1898, intestate, leaving both real and personal property, and giving the names and addresses of her heirs at law. Her brothers filed an answer resisting the petition. On the trial of the case the court found:

'That the said Mary Taylor Peterson died in Seattle, King county, Wash., on the 19th day of March, 1898; that at the time of her death she left surviving her her husband, the said Lars Peterson, now deceased, and petitioner, Neaola Taylor Higgins, now aged 49 years, C. A. J. Taylor, now aged 44 years, and the said L. A. Peterson, now agreed 40 years, the last three named persons being her only children; that she left no will; that there is now no tangible, property of the said decedent in existence; that there has been laches in making application for administration upon her estate; that there is now no necessity for the appointment of an administrator or administratrix of said estate; and that said petition should be denied.'

Upon these findings on order was entered denying the petition, from which Mrs. Higgins has appealed.

It appears that in the stringent times of the early nineties the Peterson family was not free from the prevalence of necessitous circumstances. They purchased and operated a small restaurant called the California Oyster House. It was run in the name of Neaola Taylor. On behalf of the appellant, the testimony showed that she owned an interest in the business with her mother, who furnished the money, amounting to some $300 or $400, to buy the business, and that both of them engaged in conducting it, while Mr. Peterson gave it no attention. On the contrary, it was shown, on behalf of the respondents, that Mr. Peterson purchased the business and put it in the name of the appellant because of his embarrassed financial condition with creditors and that he did give a portion of his time to the restaurant business. After the death of Mrs. Peterson in 1898, the business was still conducted in the name of the appellant, until her marriage in 1904. The personal property tax rolls showed that the restaurant property was assessed to Neaola Taylor in 1899, valued at $150, and that the tax was paid by Lars Peterson. It was assessed to him for the years 1900 to 1905, both inclusive, except the year 1901, when it was not assessed at all. Lars Peterson operated the restaurant, after the marriage of the appellant, until 1911. It is uncertain if anything more than a living for the family was made prior to the death of Mrs. Peterson. They did not own a home. After her death, it seems that the business prospered, and continued to do so until he ceased to run it, and that out of the profits he purchased considerable property. The appellant testified as follows:

'Q. You never claimed any interest in that place (restaurant) after 1904, did you? A. Well, I had this much interest in it, that I always expected to get what was coming to me out of it.'

These are substantially the facts upon which the appellant seeks the appointment of an administrator of her mother's estate 27 years after her mother's death. There was no evidence that at the time of the hearing in this case there was then in existence any real or personal property belonging to Mrs. Peterson or in which she was...