# Appendix — Reed v. Reed > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386413_0385%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1971 - **Citation:** 404 U.S. 71 ## Text 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 | 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.