In Re Administration of the Estate of Suskin

Stacy, C. J. To determine whether the appointment of John Arch-bell Wilkinson administrator of the estate of Louis B. Suskin, deceased, was void ab initio, because improvidently made in a case of testacy, Springs v. Irvin, 28 N. C., 27, or de facto sufficient until revoked, Shober v. Wheeler, 144 N. C., 403, 57 S. E., 152, would avail but little on the present record, for, so far as the instant case is concerned, both alternatives lead to the same result. C. S., 30. See 23 C. J., 1032; Oroswell’s Executors and Administrators, ch. 21, p. 432. It is enough to observe that the revocation was not for disqualification or default under C. S., 31; and that no question of priority or preferential right of nomination and substitution is here involved. In re Estate of Smith, 210 N. C., 622, 188 S. E., 202. The granting of the second administration ipso facto superseded the first. 11 R. C. L., 90; Croswell’s Executors and Administrators, supra. Moreover, it appears that no one interested in the estate, and no one claiming a legal right to administer it, is undertaking to prosecute the present appeal. Pratt v. Kitterell, 15 N. C., 168. The revocation of the first letters of administration separated John Archbell Wilkinson from any connection with the estate. No effort is being made to impeach any of his acts. Shields v. Ins. Co., 119 N. C., 380, 25 S. E., 951. He is not the “party aggrieved” in any legal sense, C. S., 632; and no substantial right of his has been affected by the ruling. C. S., 638; In re Will of Hargrove, 206 N. C., 307, 173 S. E., 577; 3 C. J., 644. The appeal is not according to the practice of the common law; and it is not contemplated by statute. Conrad v. Button, 28 Mich., 365; 23 C. J., 1066. Appeal dismissed.