Appendix — Reed v. Reed

TABLE OF CONTENTS .

PAGE .

Relevant Docket Entries ...................... save! - | ola

'. Petition of Sally Reed for Letters of Administration 2a

... Petition of Cecil R. Reed for Letters of Administration 5a

at » : ; °

| Opinion of ‘Probate Judge .: bene an 7a

Order Appointing Administrator <a (9a

Notice of Appeal Filed April 24, 1968 .

coe lla ,

_- Opinion of the District Court, Fourth Judicial District 12a

| Notice of Appeal Filed Jannary 30, 1969 ..2.,........ 16a

o | | |

Opinion of the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho .... 17a

Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United ,

States... . . 25a

. Relevant Docket Entries

- . 4 °

District Court, ADA County, IpaHo |

May 9, 1968 Nofice of Appeal.from Probate Court

Dec. _ 2, 1968 Memorandum Decision and Order

Feb. . 11, 1970. Copy of Suprene Court Opinion'r rev versing ,

— Pe Order and eden |

Sure. Courr oF THE STATE oF ‘Toanio » : _

Feb. ’ ‘Ul, 1970 Filed Opinion. - -e,

Mar. 24, 1970 Entered Order denying respondent’s pee

tion for rehearing

Mar. 24, 1970 Entered judgment

June 16, 1970 Filed respondent’s Notice of Anes to

| U.S. Supreme Court

A

oe

‘

- IN THE

. ; Oa a :

Petition of Sally Reed: for Letters of Administration

/

PROBATE COURT

oF THE CouNTY oF ADA ¢ -

Srate or IpaHo .

. ° ; > | 2

_ In THe MarterR pF THE EsyatE OF

Ricuarp Lynn Reev, Deceased.

*

fa ——

“The petition of Sally Reed reapectoally: represents and

shows unto, thé Court: - }

°

: L. ‘ : ¢

Richard Lynn Reed, the above named’ decedent, died

intestate“at Boise, in the County of Ada, State of Idaho,

on the 29th day of March, 1967, and that timé was a resi-

dent of Boise, in the County of. Ada, State of Idaho.

II.

The ‘said decedent left an estate ‘in said County of Ada,

State of Idaho, consisting of personal property. .

od

> oF III. -

The veins and character of the, pr operty of the estate SO

deft by, said decedent, so far as the same are known to your

petitioner 7) can be by her ascettained, are as follows:

*Eduéational savings , fun in Idahy (sie) ‘Federal

‘Credit Union, value $495.08, plus. interest.

Claringt, value approximately $100.00 Personal cloth-

_ ing and ‘effects, value approximately $90.00, Records;

value approximately. $100.00° —

&

Ve

The estate” and effects for which letters of administra-.

tion are hereby applied. do not ‘exceed in value fhe sum of

$1000.00. . ;

e V.

~The only -heirs at law of said decedent known to your

petitioner are’as follows, to-wit

-

.

NaME - Ace .- Rewationsuie . |‘ RESIDENCE

Cecil. R. Reed - over 21. Adopted Father 5207 Ponder.

Sally Reed over 21 Adopted Mother 1622 Vista Abenue

“and - ' Boise, Idaho

bal Guardian :

‘x ..

/ - :- o eo... * :

6 ¢

That due search and inquiry have been madesto ascertain

whether or. not the’ decedent left a will. That’hd will has,

_been Found and according to the best knowledge of: your

petitioner said decedent left no will or testament.

a . -

| - - VIL. e —

That your petitioner is ‘over, the age of majority, a citi-

zen of the United States of America and a resident of ‘the

Jounty of Ada, State of Idaho; that your petitioner is a

person interested in said estate, the mother and legal guard-

ian of the person and estate of Richard. Lynn Reed, and

a person in all respects competent to:act as administratrix

of ‘the estate, and is entitled to letters ot administratidn

upon said estate.

ah ¢

¢

4a

ce

.

-Wuererrore, Your petitioner prays that a day may be ap-

pointed for hearing this petitioner’s petition and that due

notice of said hearing be given as required by law; that

upon hearing and the proofs to'be adduced thereat, the

administration of said estate be granted to your petitioner

and letters of administration thereupon be issued to her;

Rosert F. McLavuGHuin .

Attorney for the Petitioner

' Residence and Post Office Address

Mountain Home, Idahe.

(Jurat omitted in printing)

- . oe > Pa TS

shoes =

Petition of Cecil R. Reed for Letters of Adminisiration

IN THE _

PROBATE COURT

or Apa County

State oF Ipano

IN THE Marrer oF THE Estate OF 44 49

Ricuarp Lynn Reep, Deceased. i

| on

To. the Honorable W. ¥. Smith, Fades of the Probate” ;

Court of the County of Ada, State of Idaho: ;

The Petition’of Cecil R. Reed, of said Ada COnnty Re- .

spectfully shows : ;

That Richard Lynn Reed died on or about the 29th day :

of March, 1967, County of Ada, State of Idaho. ;

That said deceased, at the time of his death, was resident 3

- . . : 3

of the County of Ada, State of Idaho. t

That said deceased left estate in the said County of Ada, i

State of Idaho, consisting of personal property, the same FE

being his separate property and not to exceed $1,000.00 ~ é

in value. - 9 E

That the names, ages, and residences of the heirs of said _ e

deceased are as follows: E

Cecil R. Reed, father -adult :

5705 Pinder Ave. Boise, Idaho e

Sally Reed, mother adult . | &

1622 Vista Ave. Boise, Idaho

tate;

= uf pe ee. 6 SIR Sy namie TEs Tv he eae ee Oe ay RS

6a

That due search and inquiry have been made to ascertain

if said deceased left any will and testament but none has

been found and according to the best: knowledge, informa-

tion and belief of your petitioner, said deceased died intes-

That your petitioner, Cecil R. Reed, is the father of said

deceased, and therefore as your petitioner is advised and

believes he is entitled to letters of administration of said

estate. —

Wuenrerore, Your petitioner prays that, a-day of Court

“may be appointed for hearing this application; that due

* notice thereof be given by the Clerk of said Court, by post-

ing notices according to law; and upon said hearing, and

the proofs to be adduced, letters of administration of said

estate may be issued to your petitioner. 7

Dated: Noxgpiber 27, 1967.

Crecit R. REED | |

Applicant -

Cuarues S. Stout

AttoMey for .pplicant

. Residing at Boise, Idaho

Filed Nov. 27, 1967

Ta

Opinion of Probate Judge

PROBATE COURT

County or Canyon, State or IpaHo

CALDWELL, IDAHO |

~March 6, 1968

Mr. Charles S. Stout

Idaho Building |

Boise, Idaho

Re: Estate of Richard Lynn Reed, Deceased.

Dear Sir:

The Application of Sally Reed, mother of the decedent

and the application of Cecil R. Reed, father of the dece-

dent, for Letters of Administration were heard jointly on

February 21, 1968, and the Court took the same under ad- —

visement.

Under 15-312, Idaho Code, the mother and father would .

have equal priority to Letters of Administration. Howev er,

Section 15-314, Idaho Code, reads as follows:

“Preferences,—Of several persons claiming and equally

entitled to administer, males must be preferred to

females, and relatives of the whole to those of the half

blood.”

’ The Court believes proper interpretation of the statutes

requires the granting of Letters of Administration to

Cecil R. Reed.

It did not appear that either party is disqualified to act

- as administrator.

The interests of Sally Reed can be protected by request-

ing notice of proceedings, objections to the ‘inventory, by

petition for distributive share, and by other procedural.

devices almost as fully as if alte were appointed adminis-

tratrix.

Will counsel for Cecil R. Reed please prepare an Order

Appointing Administrator fixing bend at $1,000. 00.

Very truly yours,

Floyd C. McClintick

Probate Judge

LCM:RR

ee: Robert F. McLaughlin

Ada County Probate Court

9a

Order Appointing Administrator

IN THE

PROBATE COURT -

or Apa County, State or IpaHo

ree

——_

ly THE MarTTER OF THE EstAaTE OF

RicHarp Lynn REep,

; ‘Deceased.

—<—>—_

The petitions of Sally Reed, the mother of deceased, and

Cecil R. Reed, the father of dece; ased, praying for letters of

administration of the estate of Richard Lynn Reed, de-

__ ceased, coming on regularly to be heard the 21st day of

February, 1968 and due proof having been madé to the~

satisfaction of this Court that the Clerk had given notice

in all respects according to law; and all and singular the

law and the evidence by the Court understood and fully

considered whereupon it is by the Court here adjudged and ¢

decreed that the said Richard Lynn Reed died on the 29th:

day of March, 1967, intestate, in the County of Ada, State

of Idaho; a resident of said County of Ada, State of Idaho,

- at the time of his death; and that he left estate in the

County of’ Ada,, State of Idaho, and iui the jurisdiction

of this Court. ,

It further appearing to the Court that each of said ap-

plicants is qualified to act but that the said Cecil R. Reed

has a preference by reason of Sectién 15-314 of the Idaho

Code. | | ,

whe ETE I

neo 4h Oar

| 10a

Iv 1s ORDERED, That letters of administration of the estate

of the said Richard Lynn Reed, deceased, issue to the said

petitioner, Cecil R. Reed, upon his taking the oath and filing

a bond, according to law, in the sum of $1,000.00.

Dated March 11, 1968.

Fioyp C. McCuinTICK -

_ Probate Judge of Ada County Protem

lla

Notice of Appeal Filed April 24,°1968

_ IN THE

PROBATE COURT

OF THE CounTY oF ADA, STATE oF InaHO

—

In THE Matrer OF THE EstaTE OF ee

. € * ~

_

Ricuarp Lynn REED,

. | Deceased.

To the Honorable W..E. Smith, ‘Probate Judge of Ada

County, and to the Honorable. Lloyd C. McClintick, Pro-

_ bate Judge of Ada County, Protem:

Comes now Sally Reed, an heir-at-law of Richard ‘Lymn |

Reed, deceased, and hereWith gives notice of appeal from

the verdict, judgment and ordér appointing administrator,

and the whole thereof, rendered by the Court in this matter

on the 11th day of March, 1968, denying the petition of

Sally Reed for letters of administration of the estate of

Richard Lynn Reed, deceased.

The grounds for said appeal are as follows: .

. 1. The Court erred on both questions of law and of fact °

in not granting letters of ‘administration of the estate of

Richard Lynn Reed, deceased, to peony Reed, an heir of the

deceased.

Said heir and appellant appeals on questions of law and

of fact therein and demands trial de novo in the District

Court.

Dated this 23rd day of April, 1968.

Rosert F. McLavcGHLINn

Attorney for Sally Reed .

Residence and Post Office Address

Mountain Home, Idaho -

12a

Opinion of the District Court, Fourth Judicial District

IN THE

DISTRICT COURT

oF THE FourtH JupiciaAL DIsTRICT

OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

; . , |

In AND FoR THE CeauNnTy oF ADA.

, 7 as ie

@ * Civil No. 40834

MrmMorANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

In the. Matter of the Estate of

Z - : é ‘

w Ricuarp Lynn Reep, Deceased.

— >

This. matter is before the Court on appeal from the

Probate Court of Ada County Idaho. The point in question

is whether -I.C. 15-314 is constitutional. This act provides

that in the appointment of persons to administer an estate

of a decedent, that of several persons claiming and: equally

entitled to administer that males must be preferred to

females. The parties through their respective counsel have

stipulated that the matter be submitted to the Court on

briefs and the same have been submitted.

- This section of the Probate Code’ originally appeared in

the Probate Practice Act adopted by the first territorial

legislature and has been in effect ever snce. It was. ap-

parently borrowed from California. Montana has a similar 7

statute’: The constitutionality has never been questioned

in any of these states. A companion statute, IC. 15-312, - .

¢

13a

whieh gives a preference to brothers over sisters has been

upheld in each of the states although the precise point

which is involved in this case was not raised or argeed.

The appellants contend that under the Idaho Ciyil Rights

Act this section is unconstitutional. The Idaho Civil Rights —

Act, however, applies only to the right to obtain artl hold

employment and the right to qn equal enjoyment of ac-

commodation or public place of amusement, etc. The right

to be appointed as administrator is not employment, it is

merely a temporary appointment for a temporary purpose.

For definition of the word administrator, see Worpbs AND

Purases; Volume Two, Page 291, Section 339. This Court,

therefore, does not feel that this section is in conflict with

the Civil Rights Law.

The appellant further contends. that ‘ie, statute is un-

“constitutional since it violates the Fourteenth Amendment

to the Constitution of ‘the United States and Article I,

Section One of thie Constitution of the State of Idaho. ‘First

it should be noted that women are not disquialified from be-

ing appointed to administer an estate in Idaho since Sec- —

tion 15-314 states that of several persons. claiming and

equally entitled to administer, males must be preferred to

females. The Fourteenth Amendment protects all persons

without regard to race, color or class and prohibits any

state legislation which has the effect of denying to any

race, class or individual the equal protection of the laws.

The guiding principle of this guarantee of équal protection

of the laws requires that all persons be treated alike under

like circumstances and conditions both in the privileges

conferred and the liabilities imposed. The equal protection

- clause of the, Fourteenth Amendment is a restriction ‘on

- state governments and includes all departments of state

government including both political and;judicial. It is true

ry

re ee

that a state may classify persons and objects for thie pur- -

pose of legislation aud pass laws applicable only to persons

or objects within a designated class. However, class legis- _ \

lation discriminating against some and favoring others isy .

prohibited by the equal protection guarantee. One of the

essential requirements as to, classification so that it does

not violate the constitutional guarantee as to equal pro> ’

> tection of laws is that the. classification must not, be

‘capricious or arbitrary but must be reasonable and natural | 7

and must have a rational basis. If it is arbitrary or capri-

cious it is in’ conflict with the suaranipe- The ‘Court carr

see no reasonable basis for the clas ication which gives

preference’ of males over females. Counsel for the respon-

dent argues that there is a reasonable base for the classi-

fieation. He says that men ordinarily have more business

‘experience than women. The Court feels that this state-

ment has no basis in fact in this modern age and: society.

There are occasions when a woman would be more quali-

fied than a man and vice versa. This’ would be the basis |

of the Court choosing one over the other where they are

both equally entitled to be appointed to administer the

estate. Counsel for the respondent further claims that it

would he easier to recover from a man than a woman

_ in the ease. of defaleation. This again depends on the facts

of whether or not the woman: is married and whether or.

not she has separate property. Again these matters, are

something the Court should weigh in determining which

- of two persons is best qualified. to administer the estate.

The mere fact that a person is a male rather than a female

' is not a valid basis for preference and the Court, therefore,

finds this section of the Idaho Code, 15-314, unconstitutional -_

as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

GRR ess 8 ote

eo . «45

e . .

States Constititidh and. Article I, Section One Of the. Con

-stitution of the State of Idaho. , o.

Originally the appeal was from both questions of law and

fact. The parties hav 'e stipulated that ‘the, appeal is only

to questions of law. Therefore, the matter should be re-

~ turned to the Probate Court for its determination of which

of the two parties is best qualified to serve as administra-

tor or. paunovetre ys of the estate. It is so’ Ordered.

. 4

-- .

aiae and signed this 2nd day of December, 1968.

A.

Cuaries R.’ Donatpson

Sf _ District Judge \_

,*

%

16a : ~ =

"Notice of Appeal Filed January 30, 1969

_ oe In THE

| DISTRICT COURT.

* OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

In AND FOR THE County or ADA

No. 30834

+

In the “Matter of the Estate of

Ricuarp Lynn ReEep,

~ . : Deceased.

<>

: To Sally Reed and’ i Derr, Derr and Walters and Robert

F. McLaughlin, her attorneys, and to the above entitled

Court:

- You and each of you will please take notice that Cecil

R. Reed, Administrator of the Estate of Richard Lynn

Reed, deceased, does hereby appeal to the Supreme Court

of the State of Idaho from that certain order and judgment

made and entered in the above entitled cause by the above

entitled court on the 2nd day of December, 1968, reversing

and setting aside the order of the Probate Court of Ada‘

County, Idaho, appointing said Cecil R. Reed, administrator

of the estate of Richard Lynn Reed, deceased and ordering

the said matter returned to said Probate Court for further

proceedings and from the whole thereof.

Dated January 30,1969. . . - .

¢ 16

CxHarces 8. Stout

Attorney for Appellant

Residing at Boise, Idaho

ett f BH ATS Um eR RNID

‘

17a

Opinion of the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho © |

| IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO ©

| No. 10417

°

s

¢ .

saeeames . ous

: LOLOL EERSTE EL DEMME SED BE LRAT ILE: PTR, ee .

Boise, November 1969 Term

Filed: Feb 11 1970

Martin V. Huff, Clerk .

Satty M. Reep, :

~ Plaintiff-Respondent; '

r

. Vv. . f

Crecin R. Reep, Aprinistrator In the Matter of the

Kstate of Richard Lynn Reéd, Deceased,

Defendant-A ppellant.

TRE dean al Sia a

'

' Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial E|

District, Ada County. Hon. Charles R. Donaldson, Dis- -

trict Judge. i

Appeal from order and judgment of district court revers-

ing order of probate court appointing administrator. Order |

and judgment of district court reversed. > ye ;

Charles S. Stout, Boise, for appellant.

Derr, Derr & Walters, Boise, and Robert F. Me- -

Laughlin, Mountain Home, for respondent.

-. 18a

McFappen, C.J.

Richard Lynn Reed, the adopted son of Sally M. Reed

and Cecil R. Reed, died intestate on March 29, 1967, in Ada

County. According to the respective petitions of his mother:

Sally M. Reed,:and of his father, Cecil R. Reed, his parents

were his only heirs at law. .

- Sally M. Reed, the respondent herein, as the decedent’s

mother, filed her petition for probate.of his estate on No-

vember 6, 1967. Prior to the time set for the hearing on

this petition, Cecil R. Reed, the father, also petitioned for —

letters of administration. ;

‘The Ada County probate judge deemed himself disquali-

fied to act and the cause was heard before another probate

judge, pursuant to stipulation. The cause was heard on the

petitions for administration of the respective parties, and

the probate court entered its order appointing appellant

Reed (the father). The probate court in entering. its order |

noted that each of the parties was equally entitled to’ let-

ters of administration under LC. § 15-312, but that Mr.

Reed, the appellant, was entitled to a preference by reason

of I.C. § 15-314, which provides that as between persons

equally entitled to administer an estate, males must be

preferred to females.

On April 23, 1968 the ‘respondent (the mother) appealed

to the district court contending that LC. § 15-314 is. uncon-

stitutional as a violation of the Idaho Civil Rights Act (1.C.

~ § 18-7301 et seq:), the Fourteenth Amendment of the United

States Constitution and Art. 1, <1-of the Idaho Constitu-

tion. The district court reversed the order of the probate _

court on the ground that I.C. ¢ 15-314 violates the equal

protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the

United States Constitution and returned the case to the

ae 19a

probate court for a determination, disregarding the prefer-

ence set out by LC. § 15-314, of who is entitled to the let-

ters of administration. The appellant has appealed to this

court contending that the district court erred in holding

L.C. § 15-314 unconstitutional. |

LC. § 15-3812 EpROVICES that

“Administration of the estate of a per son ‘dying intes-

tate must be granted to some one or more of the per-

* sons hereinafter mentioned, and they are respéctively

entitled thereto in the following order:

1. The surviving ‘husband or wife or some com-

petent person whom he or she may request to have

appointed.

2. The children.

3. The father or mother. * * *”

This section is followed by LC. § 15-314 which-provides that

“Of several yersons claiming and equally entitled to

administer, males must be .preferred to females, and

relatives of the whole to those of the half blood.”

Since, then, under I.C. § 15-312 a father and mother are

“equally entitled” to letters. of adininistration, the father -

has a preference by virtue of [.C. ¢ 19-314. °

This court has said before that-the priorities established

by LC. § 15-312 are mandatory, leaving no room for dis-

cretion by the-court in the appointment of administrators.

Vaught v. Struble, 63 Idaho 352, 120 P.2d 259 (1941).

Similarly the preference given males by I.C. § 15-314 is

also mandatory; the statute itself says that males must

‘he preferred to females. Other courts construing similar.

20a

provisions have also held that the preference is manda-

tory. In re Coan’s Estate, 64 P. 691 (Cal. 1901).

The respondent, however, contends that LC. § 15-314

‘violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth ~~

Amendment of the Federal Constittition because the dis-

crimination against females as a class is not based upon

any rational policy, but rather is arbitrary and capricious.

She contends that there is no justifiable basis for granting

males a preference merely on the basis of sex.

-It is well settled that the equal protection clause of the ©

Fourteenth Amendment does not preclude the legislature

from makuig classifications and drawing distinctions be- -

tween classes. It merely prohibits classifications which are

arbitrary and capricious. Griffin v. lHinois, 351 U.S. 12,

100 L.Ed. 891,:76 S.Ct. 585 (1956); Morey v. Doud, 354

U.S. 457, 1 L.Ed. 2d 1485, 77 S.Ct. 1344 (1957); Me- |

Laughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 13 1 Ed. 2d 222, 85 S.Ct.

283 (1964). It is for the courts to determine in each instance

whether a particular classification rests upon rational

grounds or is in fact without justification and arbitrary.

Carrington v, Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 13 L.Ed. 2d 675, 85 S.Ct.

779 (1969) ; MeLaughlin v. Florida, supra.

It is equally well settled -that legislative enactments

are entitled to a pfesuinption of validity and that a classi-

fication will not be held unconstitutional absent a clear

rs that it is arbitrary and without justification. Rowe

, City of Pocatello, 70 Idaho 343, 218 P.2d 695 (1950).

LC. § 15-312 classifies individuals as_ to their relation-

ship to a‘decedent and gives to those most closely related

to the decedent a preference for appointment as adminis-

trator. -This classification is basically in accord with the

law as to the intestate succession of property in Idaho.

enn oneness °

21a

L.C. § 14-103. Those first entitled to succeed to the property

have a priority over subsequent successors insofar as en-

titlement to administer is concerned. This is a basic and

rational classification insofar as LC. ¢ 15-312 is concerned.

However, unlike determination of succession of property -

-where a court may-award to individuals in a class a pro-

portionate share of property without. complication, the

naming of an administrator out of a particular class be-

comes more involved. Generally only one administrator

is named, although by joint petition it is possible for joint

administrators to be named from a particular class. .

When two or more persons of a class, as established by

L.C. § 15-312, individually seek administration of an estate,

the court is faced with the issue of which one should be

named. By LC. § 15-314, the legislature eliminated two

areas of controversy, i.c., if both a man and a woman. of

the same class seek letters of administration, the male.

~ would be entitled over the female, the same as a relative.

of the whole blood is entitled over a relative of the same

class but of only the half blood. This provision of the

statute is neither an illogical nor arbitrary method devised

by the legislature to resolve an issue ‘that would otherwise

require a hearing as to the relative merits as to which of

the two or more petitioning relatives should be appointed.

Philosophically it can be argued with some degree of

logic that the provisions of I.C. § 15-314 do discriminate

against women on the basis of sex., However nature it-

self has established the distinction and this'statute is not

designed to discriminate, but is. only designed to alleviate

the problem of holding hearings by the court to determine

eligibility to administer. This is one of those areas where

a choice must be made, and the legislature by enacting LC.

§ 15-314 made the determination.

22a

The legislature when it enacted this statute evidently

concluded that in general men are better qualified to act as

an administrator than ara women. As the United States

Supreme Court pointed out in Morey v. Doud; supra,

“6A classification having some reasonable basis does

- not offend against that clause [equal protection: clause]

merely because it is not made with mathematical nicety

or because in practice it results in some inequality.

* * * One who assails the classification in such a law

must carry the burden of showing that it does not rest ©

upon any reasonable basis, but is essentially arbitrary.’

Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 31

S.Ct. 337, 55". Ed. 369.” 77 S.Ct. at 1349.

While this classification may not be entirely aecurate: and:

‘there are doubtless particular instances in which it is in-

eorrect, we are not prepared to say- that it is so com-

pletely without a basis in fact as to be irrational and arbi-

trary. We are concerned only with whether the classifica-

tion is'so irrational and arbitrary that it violates the con-

stitution, and it is our opinion that it is not.

States have recognized the validity:, of classifications

based upon sex ih a variety of situations. See 2 Stan. L.

Rev. 691: This court has held that a woman cannot bind.

her separate. property by signing an appeal bond when it

is not for her own use and benefit. See Craig v. Lane, 60.

Idaho 178, 89 P.2d 1008 (1939). There are also several

other cases from other jurisdictions upholding statutes dis-

criminating | on the basis of sex when there is a rational

basis for distinguishing between the’ sexes. See State v.

Hunter, 300 P.2d 455 (Ore. 1956); Patterson. v. City of

Dallas, 399 S.W.2d 838 cies Civ. App. 1962) ; ‘State v

y

23a

° i]

.

Hollman, 102 S.E.2d 873 (S.C. 1958) ; : Badve v. Division

~ of Alcoholic- Beverage Control, 105 A.2d 6 (N.J. Super.

1954) ; State v. Emery, 31 S.E.2d 858° (N2Cy 1944) ; In re .

Mahaffay’s Estate, 254 P. 875 (Mont. 1927),

As this court stated in N ewland v. Child, 73 Idaho 530,

254 P.2d 1066 (1953),

“It is recognized that the ievisintane has broad dis-

eretionary power to make classifications of persons

and property for all purposes which it may lawfully

seek to accomplish. So long as.the classifications are

based upon some legitimate ground of difference be-

tween the persons or objects classified, are not un-

reasonable or arbitrary, and bear a reasonable rela-

tion to the legislative purpose, such classifications do

not violate the constitution.” 73 Idaho at 539-540.

It is our opinion that the state has a legitimate inter-

est in promoting the prompt administration of estates and

that the statute in question promotes this interest by cur-

tailing litigation over the appointment of administrators.

In addition it is supported by the presmmpion of constitu-

tionality.

The respondent also contends that LC. § 15-314 ‘violates

the newly enacted Idaho Civil Rights Act. LC. § 18-7301

et seq. That act, however, proy ides a remedy for, among

other things, sexual discrimination in employment or pub- —

lie accommodations. It is our opinion that it is inapplicable

here. Moreover, the legislature could not have intended by

that enactment to prohibit all discrimination based on sex.

_ As in the case with the equal protection clause of the Four-

teenth. Amendment, discrimination based upon the differ-

ences between men and women which. is not wholly irra-

24a,

tional or arbitrary and which is utilized to accomplish a _

legitimate objective is not condemned. ) |

The judgment of the district court is reversed and the

order of the probate court awarding letters of administra- »

tion.to the appellant is reinstated. _Costs. to appellant.

McQvapE, Syeparp and Spear, JJ., and FELTON, D.J.,

concur.

U

wv

,*

Oa

Notice’ of Appeal to the Supreme Court

of the United States

- In’ THE

SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

-_ e ,

‘No. 10417 .

Satty M. REeEp, .

"Plaintiff-Respondent, .

Vv. * ‘ SS

Ceciz R. Reep, Administrator in the Matter of the

Estate of Richard Lynn Reed, Deceased, =

Defendant-Appellant.

<j

Notice is hereby given that Sally M. Reed, Plaintiff- |

Respondent above-named, hereby appeals to the Supreme

Court of the United States from the final judgment of ©

the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho, reversing the

judgment of the District Court of the Fourth Judicial Dis-

trict of the State of Idaho, in and for the County of Ada,

and declaring Idaho Code 15-314 constitutional, entered in

this action on February 11, 1970. Petition for rehearing

was denied on March 24, 1970. .

This appeal is taken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1257(2).

_ ALuLen R. DERR

, Counsel for Plaintiff-Respondent

June 16, 1970 . :