(182 P.)

113 C. C. A. 252; Estate of Walker, 160 Cal 547, 117 Pac. 510, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 89.

The administrator's bond furnished by defendant was not broken. Clinton v. Nelson,

1917E, 909; 23 Cyc. 1411; 23 Cyc. 1408; Black on Judgments, §§ 245, 246; Schouler on Wills (5th Ed.) § 1528; 18 Cyc. 642; 18 Cyc. 628; Snyder v. Murdock, 26 Utah, 233, at 237, 73 Pac. 22; Comp. Laws 1907, Utah, §§ 3779,2 Utah, 284; Evans v. Evans (Ala. 1917) 76 3780, 3955; Toland v. Earl, 129 Cal. 148, 61 Pac. 914, 79 Am. St. Rep. 100; Code Civ. Proc. Cal. § 1686; Williams v. Williams, 73 Cal. 99, 14 Pac. 394; Rosenberg v. Frank, 58 Cal. 387; State v. McGlynn, 20 Cal. 233, 81 Am. Dec. 118; Tracy v. Muir, 151 Cal. 363, 90 Pac. 832, 121 Am. St. Rep. 117; State v. Blake, 69 Conn. 64, 36 Atl. 1019; Grignon v. Astor, 2 How. 319, 11 L. Ed. 283; Wilson v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 164 Fed. 817, 819, 90 C. C. A. 593, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 553; Kearney v. Kearney, 72 Cal. 591, 15 Pac. 769; Mohr v. Mannierre, 101 U. S. 417, 25 L. Ed. 1052; Simmons v. Saul, 138 U. S. 453, 11 Sup. Ct. 369, 34 L. Ed. 1054; Benson v. Anderson, 10 Utah, 135, 37 Pac. 256; Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. § 919; William Hill Co. v. Lawler, 116 Cal. 359, 48 Pac. 323; Goad v. Montgomery, 119 Cal. 552, 51 Pac. 681, 63 Am. St. Rep. 145; Garr v. Davidson, 25 Utah, 335, 71 Pac. 481; Smith v. Westerfield, 88 Cal. 374, 26 Pac. 206; Barrette v. Whitney, 36 Utah, 574, 106 Pac. 522, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 368.

The probate decrees operated as a complete and final discharge of, and bar in favor of, the surety. Freeman on Judgments (3d Ed.) p. 660; Evans v. Evans (Ala. 1917) 76 South. 95; Turner et al. v. Cole, 24 Ala. 364; Smith v. Eureka Bank, 24 Kan. 528; Woodworth v. Woodworth, 70 Mo. 601; State, to Use, v. Anthony, 30 Mo. App. 638.

The appropriate and exclusive remedy applied in a court of equity against probate decrees, where grounds for relief exist, is to charge the property with a trust, and to hold the beneficiary as a trustee for the original owner. Silva v. Santos, 138 Cal. 536, 71 Pac. 703; Sohler v. Sohler, 135 Cal. 323, 67 Pac. 282, 87 Am. St. Rep. 98; Curtis v. Schell, 129 Cal. 208, 61 Pac. 951, 79 Am. St. Rep. 107; Barnesley v. Powell, 1 Vesey, Sr. 284; Kerrish v. Barnsly, 7 Brown, Par. Cas. 437; Andrews v. Powys, 2 Brown, Par. Cas. 504; Mason v. Harkins, 4 Brown, Par. Cas. 7; Stead v. Curtis, 205 Fed. 439, 123 C. C. A. 507; State v. McGlynn, 20 Cal. 233, 81 Am. Dec. 118; Nicholson v. Leatham, 28 Cal. App. 597, 153 Pac. 965, 155 Pac. 98; Scoville v. Brock, 79 Vt. 449, 65 Atl. 577, 118 Am. St. Rep. 975; Hanley v. Hanley, 114 Cal. 690, 46 Pac. 736; Goodrich v. Ferris (C. C.) 145 Fed. 844; Aldrich v. Barton, 138 Cal. 220, 71 Pac. 169, 94 Am. St. Rep. 43; Estate of Hudson, 63 Cal. 454; Exton v. Zule, 14 N. J. Eq. 501; Crew v. Pratt, 119 Cal. 139, 51 Pac. 38; William Hill Co. v. Lawler, 116 Cal. 359, 48 Pac. 323; Cunha v. Hughes, 122 Cal. 111, 54 Pac. 535, 68 Am. St. Rep. 27; Jewel v. Pierce, 120 Cal. 79, 52 Pac. 132; Turner v. Cole, 24 Ala. 364; Patterson v. Dickinson, 193 Fed. 328,

South. 95; State v. Anthony, 30 Mo. App. 638; Barker v. Stanford, 53 Cal. 451; Kirby v. State, 51 Md. 383; State et al. v. Cheston & Carey, 51 Md. 352; Neely v. Merritt, 72 Ky. (9 Bush) 346; Perkins v. Lewis, 41 Ala. 649, 94 Am. Dec. 616; Carter v. Young, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 210; Herbert v. Herbert, 22 La. Ann. 308; People v. Petrie, 191 Ill. 497, 61 N. E. 499, 85 Am. St. Rep. 268; Bird v. Mitchell, 101 Ga. 46, 28 S. E. 674; People v. Huffman, 182 Ill. 391, 55 N. E. 981; Cluff v. Day, 55 N. Y. Super. Ct. 460; Hinds et al. v. Hinds' Ex'r, 85 Ind. 312; Sims v. Lively, 53 Ky. (14 B. Mon.) 433; Warfield v. Brand's Adm'r, 76 Ky. (13 Bush) 77, 95, quoting Lord Broughamn v. Lord Wm. Poulett, 19 Beavan, 133; 11 R. C. L. 305; 18 Cyc. 1264-1268, note 26; Riggin v. Creath, 60 Ohio St. 114, 53 N. E. 1100; Young v. People, 35 Ill. App. 363; Loop v. Northup, 59 Hun, 75, 13 N. Y. Supp. 144; Ramsey v. Cole et al., 84 Ga. 147, 10 S. E. 598; Turner et al. v. Cole, 24 Ala. 364; Hessey's Ex'r v. Hessey, 1 Ky. Law Rep. 424; Campbell v. Amer. Bonding Co., 172 Ala. 458, 55 South. 306; Leavens v. Bishop, 65 Wis. 440, 27 N. W. 324; Bamke v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 61 Minn. 549, 63 N. W. 1116, 52 Am. St. Rep. 618; Fisher v. Johnson, 90 Misc. Rep. 46, 152 N. Y. Supp. 944; Kager v. Brenneman, 47 App. Div. 63, 62 N. Y. Supp. 339.

A judgment against an administrator is conclusive on his surety, but this must be a judgment (such as the decrees upon which we rely) rendered in the probate court or rather according to the probate procedure, and in the very proceeding in which the administrator and his surety are acting. Commonwealth v. Stub, 11 Pa. 150, 51 Am. Dec. 515; Reed v. Hume, 25 Utah, 248, 70 Pac. 998; Beall v. New Mexico, 16 Wall. 535, 21 L. Ed. 292; Williams v. Kiernan, 25 Hun (N. Y.) 355; Greer v. McNeal (1902) 11 Okl. 526, 69 Pac. 893; Treweek v. Howard, 105 Cal. 434, 39 Pac. 20; Bellinger v. Thompson (1894) 26 Or. 320, 37 Pac. 714, 40 Pac. 229; Deobold v. Opperman, 111 N. Y. 531, 19 N. E. 94, 2 L. R. A. 644, 7 Am. St. Rep. 760; Nanz v. Oakley (1890) 120 N. Y. 84, 24 N. E. 306, 9 L. R. A. 223 to 227, inclusive; Stovall v. Banks, 10 Wall. 583, 19 L. Ed. 1036; Williams v. Kiernan, 25 Hun (N. Y.) 355; Jochumsen v. Bank, 3 Allen (Mass.) 87; State v. White, 29 N. C. 116; Wales v. Willard, 2 Mass. 120; London v. Wilmington, SS N. C. 584; Comp. Laws 1907, § 2918; Irwin v. Backus, 25 Cal. 214, 85 Am. Dec. 125; Reed v. Hume, 25 Utah, 248, 256, 70 Pac. 998; Salyer v. State, 5 Ind. 202; Lamkin v. Heyer, 19 Ala. 228; McClellan v. Downey, 63 Cal. 520; Baggott v. Boulger, 9 N. Y. Super. Ct. 160;

Jenkins v. State, 76 Md. 255, 23 Atl. 608, | 1918C, 55; Douglass v. Ferris, 138 N. Y. 790; Cleaves v. Dockway, 67 Me. 118; Frye v. Crockett, 77 Me. 157; Ordinary v. Connolly, 75 N. J. Eq. 521, 72 Atl. 363; U. S. F. & G. Co. v. People, 159 Ill. App. 35; O'Neil's Appeal, 55 Conn. 409, 11 Atl. 857; Fincke v. Bundrick, 72 Kan. 182, 83 Pac. 403, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 820; Leavens v. Bishop, 65 Wis. 440, 27 N. W. 324.

Breaches of bond by administratrix and liability of surety. Butts v. Larison (Okl.) 170 Pac. 500; Fincke v. Bundrick (1905) 72 Kan. 182, 83 Pac. 403, at p. 405, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 820; Woerner on Administration (2d Ed.) p. 548, § 255; 1 Brandt on Suretyship (3d Ackley's Ed.) § 2; Green's Administratrix v. Creighton, 23 How. 90, 108, 16 L. Ed. 419; 11 A. & E. Encycl. of L. (2d Ed.) 901, 902; Hayden v. Hayden, 46 Cal. 332; Aldrich v. Barton, 138 Cal. 222, 223, 71 Pac. Probate jurisdiction of district court. 169, 94 Am. St. Rep. 43; Bacon v. Bacon, Burke v. Bladine, 99 Wash. 383, 169 Pac. 811; 150 Cal. 489, 89 Pac. 317; 18 Cyc. 1260. Benson v. Anderson, 10 Utah, 135, 37 Pac. 256; The probate decree was final and binding, Fincke v. Bundrick, 72 Kan. 182, 83 Pac. 403, | except on appeal, new trial, or writ of re4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 820; Leslie v. Manufacturing view. Strauss v. State, 36 N. D. 594, 162

Co., 102 Kan. 159, 169 Pac. 193, L. R. A. N. W. 908, L. R. A. 1917E, 909; Snyder v.

(182 P.)

Murdock, 26 Utah, 233, 73 Pac. 22; Black | by direct proceedings in a court of equity. on Judgments, §§ 245, 246; Toland v. Earl, Benson v. Anderson, 10 Utah, 135, 37 Pac. 129 Cal. 148, 64 Pac. 914, 79 Am. St. Rep. 256; Clarke v. Perry, 5 Cal. 60, 63 Am. Dec. 100; 23 Cyc. 1408, 1410, 1411; State v. Mc- 82; Sanford v. Head, 5 Cal. 298; Deck v. Glynn, 20 Cal. 233, 81 Am. Dec. 118; Comp. Gerke, 12 Cal. 436, 73 Am. Dec. 558, 560; Laws Utah 1907, §§ 3779, 3780, 3955; Code Hayden v. Hayden, 46 Cal. 332; Froebrich v. Civ. Proc. Cal. §§ 1666, 1686; Tracy v. Muir, Lane, 45 Or. 13, 76 Pac. 351, 106 Am. St. 151 Cal. 363, 90 Pac. 832, 121 Am. St. Rep. Rep. 634; Dunlap v. Steere, 92 Cal. 344, 28 117; Schouler on Wills (5th Ed.) § 1528; Pac. 563, 16 L. R. A. 361; In the Matter of State v. Blake, 69 Conn. 64, 36 Atl. 1019; 18 Estate of Hudson, 63 Cal. 454; Lataillade v. Cyc. 642, 628; Sohler v. Sohler, 135 Cal. 323, Orena, 91 Cal. 565, 27 Pac. 924, 25 Am. St. 67 Pac. 282, 87 Am. St. Rep. 98; Wilson v. Rep. 219; notes to Green v. Creighton, 48 Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 164 Fed. 817, at 819, Am. Dec. 746; note to Clarke v. Perry, 63 Am. 90 C. C. A. 593, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 553; Dec. 83; United States v. Throckmorton, 98 Kearney v. Kearney, 72 Cal. 591, 15 Pac. U. S. 65, 66, 25 L. Ed. 93; Bergin v. Haight, 769; Mohr v. Mannierre, 101 U. S. 417, 25 99 Cal. 52, 33 Pac. 760; Ewing v. Lamphere, L. Ed. 1052; Simmons v. Saul, 138 U. S. 453, 147 Mich. 659, 111 N. W. 187, 118 Am. St. 11 Sup. Ct. 369, 34 L. Ed. 1054; Benson v. Rep. 563, and note; Campbell-Kawannanakoa Anderson, 10 Utah, 135, 37 Pac. 256; Goad v. Campbell, 152 Cal. 201, 92 Pac. 184; Pomv. Montgomery, 119 Cal. 552, 51 Pac. 681, 63 eroy's Eq. Jur. (2d Ed.) §§ 345-358, and Am. St. Rep. 145; Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. § 919; notes; Delafield v. State of Illinois, 2 Hill Garr v. Davidson, 25 Utah, 335, 71 Pac. 481; (N. Y.) 159; Pico v. Cohn, 91 Cal. 129, 25 Pac. Smith v. Westerfield, 88 Cal. 374, 26 Pac. 206; 970, 27 Pac. 537, 13 L. R. A. 336, 25 Am. William Hill Co. v. Lawler, 116 Cal. 359, 48 St. Rep. 159; Pomeroy's Eq. Jur. § 919; WinPac. 323; Barrette v. Whitney, 36 Utah, 574, gerter v. Wingerter, 71 Cal. 105, 11 Pac. 853; 106 Pac. 522, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 368; Barns- Parsons v. Weis, 144 Cal. 410, 77 Pac. 1007; ley v. Powel, 1 Ves. Sr. 284; Rosenberg v. Moore v. Crawford, 130 U. S. 122, 9 Sup. Frank, 58 Cal. 387; Pasadena v. Superior Ct. 447, 32 L. Ed. 878; Statute of Uses, 27 Court, 157 Cal. 788, 109 Pac. 623, 21 Ann. Hen. VIII, c. 10; Henderson v. Adams, 15 Cas. 1355; Bacon v. Bacon, 150 Cal. 477, 89 Utah, 30, 48 Pac. 398; Schenck v. Wicks, 23 Pac. 317; Grignon's Lessees v. Astor, 2 How. Utah, 576, 65 Pac. 732; Pomeroy's Eq. Jur. 319, 340, 11 L. Ed. 283; United States v. Ar- § 1065; Perry on Trusts, § 520; Blake v. redondo, 6 Pet. 729, 8 L. Ed. 547. O'Neal, 63 W. Va. 483, 61 S. E. 410, 16 L. A. A. (N. S.) 1148, and notes; Hill v. Hill, 90 Neb. 43, 132 N. W. 738, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 198, and notes; Mosby v. Gisborn, 17 Utah, 257, 54 Pac. 121; Parsons v. Weis, 144 Cal. 410, 77 Pac. 1007; Bank of Chadron v. Anderson, 7 Wyo. 441, 53 Pac. 280; 8 Pl. & Practice, 721; Reed v. Hume, 25 Utah, 248, 70 Pac. 998; Comp. Laws Utah 1907, § 3830; Pacific Bridge Co. v. U. S. Fidelity Co., 33 Wash. 47, 73 Pac. 772.

Breach of duties by administratrix. Clinton v. Nelson, 2 Utah, 284; Evans v. Evans (Ala. 1917) 76 South. 95; State v. Anthony, 30 Mo. App. 638; Baker v. Stanford, 53 Cal. 451; Kirby v. State, 51 Md. 383; State v. Cheston & Carey, 51 Md. 352; Neely v. Merritt 72 Ky. (9 Bush.) 346; Perkins v. Lewis, 41 Ala. 649, 94 Am. Dec. 616; Herbert v. Herbert, 22 La. Ann. 308; People v. Petrie, 191 Ill. 497, 61 N. E. 499, 85 Am. St. Rep. 268; Bird v. Mitchell, 101 Ga. 46, 28 S. E. 674; People v. Huffman, 182 Ill. 391; Cluff v. Day, 55 N. Y. Super. Ct. 460; Hinds v. Hinds' Ex'r, 85 Ind. 312; Sims v. Lively, 53 Ky. (14 B. Mon.) 433; Warfield v. Brand's Adm'r, 76 Ky. (13 Bush) 77; Riggin v. Creath, 60 Ohio St. 114, 53 N. E. 1100; Young v. People, 35 Ill. App. 363; Loop v. Northup, 59 Hun, 75, 13 N. Y. Supp. 144; Ramsey v. Cole, 84 Ga. 147, 10 S. E. 598; Turner v. Cole, 24 Ala. 364; Hessey's Ex'r v. Hessey, 1 Ky. Law Rep. 424; Campbell v. Amer. Bonding Co., 172 Ala. 458, 55 South. 306; Leavens v. Bishop, 65 Wis. 440, 27 N. W. 324; Bamke v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 61 Minn. 549, 63 N. W. 1116, 52 Am. St. Rep. 618; Fisher v. Johnson, 90 Misc. Rep. 46, 152 N. Y. Supp. 944; Kager v. Brenneman, 47 App. Div. 63, 62 N. Y. Supp. 339; Carter v. Young, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 210, 213; Drane v. Bayliss, 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 174; Hughlett v. Hughlett, 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 453. Discharge of surety by decree in probate. Assailing probate proceedings and decree State v. Burkam, 23 Ind. App. 271, 55 N. E.

Fraud in procuring administratrix's bond and surety's liability under proceedings against administratrix. Pierce v. Holzer, 65 Mich. 263, 32 N. W. 431; Greer v. McNeal (1802) 11 Okl. 526, 69 Pac. 893; Treweek v. Howard, 105 Cal. 434, 93 Pac. 20; Bellinger v. Thompson (1894) 26 Or. 320, 37 Pac. 714, 40 Pac. 229; Deobold v. Opperman (1888) 111 N. Y. 531, 19 N. E. 94, 2 L. R. A. 644; Manz v. Oakley (1890) 120 N. Y. 84, 24 N. E. 306, 9 L. R. A. 223 to 227; Irwin v. Backus, 25 Cal. 214, 85 Am. Dec. 125, note 131; Meyer v. Barth, 97 Wis. 352, 72 N. W. 748, 65 Am. St. Rep. 124; Stovall v. Banks, 10 Wall. 583, 19 L. Ed. 1036; Comp. Laws Utah 1907, § 2918; Williams v. Kiernan, 25 Hun (N. Y.) 355; Salyer v. State, 5 Ind. 202; McClellan v. Downey, 63 Cal. 520; Jenkins v. State, 76 Md. 255, 23 Atl. 608, 790; Baggott v. Boulger, 9 N. Y. Super. Ct. 160; Ralston v. Wood, 15 Ill. 159, 58 Am. Dec. 604.

182 P.-13

237; Brandt, Suretyship and Guaranty (3dly where the matters complained of are alEd.) § 712; Pass v. Pass, 98 Ga. 791, 23 S. E. leged to have been based upon fraud, mis752; Jacobs v. Pou, 18 Ga. 346; Potter v. representation, and deceit. In our judgment, Ogden, 136 N. Y. 384, 33 N. E. 228; Ingersoll however, the following statement fairly and v. Mangam, 84 N. Y. 622; Davis v. Cran- sufficiently reflects the pleadings, the findings dall, 101 N. Y. 321, 4 N. E. 721; Crouter of the court, and the undisputed facts, tov. Crouter, 133 N. Y. 56, 30 N. E. 726; State gether with the matters stated in the judgv. Whitehouse (Jan. 1903) 75 Conn. 410, 53 ment: Atl. 897; Matter of Gall, 182 N. Y. 270, 74 N. E. 875; Canfield v. Canfield, 118 Fed. 1, 55 C. C. A. 169; Succession of Reilly v. American Bonding Co. of Baltimore, 138 La. 315, 70 South. 237; Pierce v. Maetzold, 126 Minn. 445, 148 N. W. 302; Church, Probate Law and Practice, pp. 438, 440; Schouler on Wills (5th Ed.) §§ 1143, 1146; Cleaves v. Dockray, 67 Me. 118; Shalter's Appeal, 43 Pa. 83, 82 Am. Dec. 552; Frye v. Crockett, 77 Me. 157; Mefford v. Lamkin, 38 Ind. App. 33, 76 N. E. 1024, affirmed in 77 N. E. 960; Woerner on the Law of Decedents' Estates, § 238; American Surety Co. v. Piatt, 67 Kan. 294, 72 Pac. 775; Elizalde v. Murphy, 163 Cal. 681, 126 Pac. 978; Ordinary v. Connolly, 75 N. J. Eq. 521, 72 Atl. 363; U. S. F. & G. Co. v. People, 159 Ill. App. 35; 18 Cyc. 1275; Pollock v. Cox, 108 Ga. 430, 34 S. E. 213; In re Killan's Estate, 63 L. R. A. 96, notes; O'Neill's App., 55 Conn. 409, 11 Atl. 857.

Provisions as to probate bond. Slater v. McAvoy, 123 Cal. 437, 56 Pac. 49; Comp. Laws Utah 1907, § 3926 (Code Civ. Proc. Cal. 1458), 3829 (1390), 3830 (1392). See, also, Code Civ. Proc. Cal. § 1388, and cases cited. Comp. Laws Utah 1907, § 3919 (Code Civ. Proc. Cal. § 1586, citing Slater v. McAvoy, 123 Cal. 437, 56 Pac. 49), 3927 (1459), | 3965 (1697), 3966 (1698), 4048 (McClain's Ann. Code Iowa, 1888, § 3679), 3946 (Code Civ. Proc. Cal. § 1637).

FRICK, J. The plaintiffs named in the title, hereinafter called respondents, commenced this action in the district court of Salt Lake county as heirs at law of one Harvey Weyant, deceased. The action is predicated upon a statutory administrator's bond executed by one Rosella Fuller, as principal, and the appellant, as surety; said Rosella Fuller having been appointed the administratrix of the estate of said Harvey Weyant, deceased. Respondents obtained judgment on said bond against appellant, from which it prosecutes this appeal.

The pleadings, including the attached exhibits, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgments in the several proceedings hereinafter referred to cover 157 pages of the printed abstract. It is impracticable to set forth the pleadings, etc., in this opinion, even in condensed form. It is not always an easy task to make a satisfactory statement of the contents of the pleadings and findings of the court, where, as here, these things must be greatly abridged, and especial

One Harvey Weyant, whose estate constitutes the subject of this controversy, died intestate at Salt Lake City, Utah, on the 26th day of July, 1910. The respondent Charlotte Weyant, at the time of the death of said Weyant, was his lawful wife, and all the other respondents named in the title, except Carry Miller Clark, were his children and the issue of the marriage between the deceased and said Charlotte Weyant, while said Carry Miller Clark is a grandchild of said Weyant. Harvey Weyant had lived with his said wife and children at Springfield, Mass., for many years, and until May, 1890, at which time he abandoned them and eloped with one Rosella McIntyre, a young girl about 17 years of age, to parts unknown to his family. Said Weyant and said Rosella McIntyre, under the name of Rosella Fuller, in due time arrived at Salt Lake City,, and from thenceforth until the death of said Weyant lived in said city as husband and wife under the name of Fuller; that is, said Weyant from thenceforth assumed and was known by the name of Harvey W. Fuller, and said Rosella McIntyre was known as Mrs. Fuller. He conducted business in that and in no other name during the 20 years that he lived in Salt Lake City. After the departure from his home at Springfield, said Weyant never returned thereto, and his place of residence or abode was unknown to his said wife and children, and although they expended considerable money searching for him, they did not learn of his abode or death until the month of September, 1915. The inventory of his estate disclosed that Weyant, at the time of his death, was possessed of and owned real and personal property of the appraised value of $29,296.92. The court also found that said Rosella McIntyre, on the 30th day of July, 1910, in order to cheat and defraud the respondents, and to convert to her own use the property belonging to the estate of said Weyant, and to which she knew she had no lawful right or claim, by the name of Rosella Fuller, and as the pretended wife of said Weyant, filed her petition in the probate division of the district court of Salt Lake county in said estate, in which petition she falsely and fraudulently alleged and represented that she was the lawful wife of said Weyant, deceased, and his only surviving heir at law, when, in truth and in fact, she well knew that the respondent Charlotte Weyant was the lawful wife of said decedent, and that the other respondents were his lawful heirs, and that she had no legal

(182 P.)

right or claim to any of the property of which said Weyant was possessed and owned at the time of his death; that she fraudulently and deceitfully withheld the truth from said court, and fraudulently induced it to believe that she was the wife of said decedent, and by reason thereof to appoint her as the administratrix of said estate; that she thereafter falsely, fraudulently, and deceitfully conducted all of the proceedings relating to the administration of the estate of said Weyant in the name of Harvey W. Fuller, instead of in his true name of Harvey Weyant; that said Rosella Fuller thereafter, in said name, and by virtue of her said deceit, and by said false and fraudulent representations, obtained a family allowance for herself out of said estate amounting to the sum of $1,650, all of which she wrongfully and unlawfully appropriated to her own use; that thereafter, on June 26, 1911, said Rosella Fuller filed her petition in said court for a final settlement and distribution of the estate of said Weyant, in which petition she deceitfully, falsely and fraudulently alleged and represented herself to be the only heir at law of said Weyant, deceased; that said court, by being deceived and misled by the representations aforesaid, on the 7th day of July, 1911, made and entered an order in said estate allowing and settling the final account of said Rosella Fuller as the administratrix thereof, and entered a decree distributing to her out of the property of said estate the sum of $12,675.10 in cash, household goods and other property of the appraised value of $3,410.50, together with certain real estate situate in Salt Lake City, which is particularly described in said decree of distribution, all of which property

either of them, had any notice or knowledge of the residence of said decedent, nor of his death, nor of any of the proceedings herein referred to; that upon learning the facts before stated the respondents, on or about September 30, 1915, commenced an action in equity in the district court of Salt Lake county against said Rosella Fuller, who at that time, by reason of her marriage to one Morgan, was known by the name of Rosella Morgan, in which last name said action was commenced and prosecuted; that such proceedings were had in said action that on August 12, 1916, said court made findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered judgment in said action in favor of the respondents.

In said action the court in substance found une facts hereinbefore stated, and in effect further found that said Rosella Fuller, alias Morgan, through deceit and fraud practiced by her upon the court in the probate proceeding, had obtained the orders which were made during the administration of the estate of said Weyant, and that by means of deceit and fraud had also obtained the allowance and settlement of her final account as administratrix of said estate and a decree distributing said property to her, all of which she wrongfully and fraudulently has converted to her own use, and she has failed to account to the respondents for said property or any part thereof. The court also found that judgment was entered in said action against her for the sum of $26,091.47. The court further found that prior to the issuance of letters of administration to said Ro

sella Fuller in the estate of said decedent she was required by said court to furnish a 20th day of August, 1910, she, as principal, bond for the sum of $37,000; that on the

execute the duties of the trust according to law "If the said Rosella Fuller shall faithfully as such administratrix, then this obligation to be void; otherwise, to be and remain in full force and virtue."

she, said Rosella Fuller, wrongfully and unand the appellant as surety executed, delivlawfully appropriated and converted to her ered, and filed in said court a bond for said own use, and of which she has deprived the sum in which bond it is, among other things, respondents; that in probating said estate no provided that said Rosella Fuller, as princinotice was ever published or given, except in pal, and the appellant, as surety, are jointly the name of Harvey W. Fuller, and that all and severally "held and firmly bound unto the proceedings relating to the adminis- the state of Utah, for the use of the heirs tration of the estate of said Weyant were and creditors of Harvey W. Fuller, deceasfalsely, deceitfully, and fraudulently conducted, in the sum of $37,000." One of the coned in the false and fictitious name of Harvey ditions of said bond is thatW. Fuller by said Rosella Fuller, all of which was done by her for the purpose of cheating and defrauding the respondents; that the orders that were made by said court in said probate proceedings, and the approval and settlement of said final account, and the decree of distribution, were each and all based upon the false, fraudulent, and deceitful statements of said Rosella Fuller, and that she obtained the property of said estate through and by means of said deceit and fraud and not otherwise; that neither of said respondents was ever in the state of Utah during the lifetime of said Weyant, nor at any time until the month of September, 1915, and that prior to said time they, nor

The court also found that said Rosella Fuller, in furtherance of her deceitful and fraudulent purpose and design, had wrongfully and fraudulently converted money and property of said estate to her own use of the value of $26,091.47, and that execution had been duly issued against her and returned unsatisfied, except for the sum of $489.35. In addition to the foregoing, the court, in the equity pro ceeding aforesaid, upon a supplemental com