In Re Estate of Loflin

DeviN, J. The respondent- appealed from the judgment below upon the ground that the notice to him to show cause why the letters of administration previously issued to him should not be revoked did not provide sufficient time; and further that the orders of the clerk were improperly entered. Neither of these grounds can avail the respondent. If the time fixed in the notice to show cause was too short, the notice was not *232 void, and was duly served. At tbe time designated in tbe notice respondent was personally present, and offer was made to bim to extend tbe time for sucb period as be might desire. Tbis offer be declined. Thus be was afforded full opportunity to be beard. Stafford v. Gallops, 123 N. C., 19, 31 S. E., 265; Nall v. McConnell, 211 N. C., 258, 190 S. E., 210. It is apparent upon tbe facts found, wbicb are not controverted, tbat another bad prior right to administer tbe estate, and tbat tbe clerk acted properly in moving to revoke an appointment wbicb bad been improvidently made. Neither by lapse of time nor by any act on her part bad tbe widow of tbe decedent lost any of her rights in tbe premises, either to administer or to nominate a fit and competent person for appointment in her stead. Tbe rulings of tbe clerk and tbe judgment of tbe judge in affirmance were in accord with tbe well settled principles of law applicable to tbe settlement of estates. G. S., 28-32; G. S., 28-20 (3); G. S., 28-15; In re Estate of Smith, 210 N. C., 622, 188 S. E., 202; Williams v. Neville, 108 N. C., 559, 13 S. E., 240; Little v. Berry, 94 N. C., 433. Tbe respondent’s plea to tbe jurisdiction is without merit. Tbe Superior Court bad jurisdiction both of tbe subject matter and tbe parties. Murrill v. Sandlin, 86 N. C., 54. Tbe judgment appealed from is Affirmed.