
    William McReary, Executor of Reddick Robinson, vs. Margaret Robinson.
    The statute which authorizes the probate court to set apart an allowance for a year’s provision for the widow of “ any deceased person,” embraces as well cases of testacy as of intestacy.
    The high court of errors and appeals will not set aside an allowance made by commissioners appointed by the probate court, to the widow of a testator, merely because it was greater than they would probably as commissioners have allowed; especially where there had been two reports from commissioners, and the probate court allowed the smallest sum.
    On appeal from the probate court of Claiborne county; Hon. William M. Randolph, judge.
    Margaret Robinson, the widow of Reddick Robinson, deceased, filed her petition in the probate court of Claiborne county, praying the appointment of commissioners, tq select and set apart for her one year’s provision, from the estate of said Robinson. Commissioners were appointed, who reported an allowance of $600, “for the support of herself and family.” To this report, the following exceptions were filed in the probate court, by ffm. McReary, the executor of Robinson: and his residuary legatee, to wit :
    1. Because the said Robinson left at the time of his death a last will and testament, in which he made a bequest to his widow, which she did not renounce within six months after the probate of the will, and she is therefore barred from any other share of her husband’s estate.
    2. Because the allowance made by the commissioners to. the widow, even if she was entitled to any thing, is exorbitant and excessive, and is not sanctioned by the testimony produced before the commissioners.
    The evidence shows that Robinson left a will, containing a bequest to his widow, which she did not renounce. It was also in proof, that the widow’s family consisted of two sons under age, one being fourteen and the other seventeen years of age, and three daughters over the age of twenty-one. There was conflicting testimony as to the sum necessary for the support of the widow and family for a year; but the commissioners reported first one'thousand dollars; and upon exceptions being filed and sustained, they made the second report, the exceptions to which were overruled, and the allowance confirmed, and this appeal taken therefrom.
    
      D. H. Hooper, for appellant,
    Cited Hutch. Code, 621, sec. 45, 46; lb. 680, and commented on them.
    
      George V. Moody, for appellee,
    Relied on the statute Hutch. Code, 680, as embracing this case.
   Mr. Justice Clayton

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from an order of the probate court of Claiborne county, setting apart an allowance for a year’s provision for the widow of R. Robinson.

Two objections are made to the order by the executor. First, that the provision of the statute does not extend to the widows of persons who have left wills, but ought to be confined to the estates of intestates. Next, that in any event, the allowance is excessive:

The statute in terms extends to “ the widow of any deceased person,” (Hutch. Code, 680,) and gives her a right to one year’s provision for herself and children, “ out of the effects of such deceased person.” We cannot limit its operation to cases of intestacy.

In this instance, the allowance to the widow is large certainly, more than as commissioners we shoiild probably allow, under the circumstances disclosed by the proof. But we do not think the excess is so great as to require this court to interfere for its correction, especially when there have already been two reports from commissioners, and the probate court allowed the smallest sum.

Order affirmed.  