
    [Civil No. 1144.
    Filed March. 30, 1912.]
    [123 Pac. 31.]
    In re Estate of JAMES T. SIMS, Deceased. JOHN W. CRENSHAW, Administrator With Will Annexed, Plaintiff in Error, v. T. E. SANFORD, Defendant in Error.
    Appeal and Error—Claims Against Estate—Right oe Administrator to Review.—An. administrator had no sueh interest in the demands of creditors against the estate as to entitle him to appeal from a judgment disallowing sueh demands; he being fully protected by the judgment, so that he should not use the funds of the estate to prosecute litigation which cannot involve him in liability.
    WRIT OF ERROR from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, in and for the County of Maricopa. Edward Kent, Judge.
    Dismissed.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    Messrs. Kibbey, Bennett & Bennett, for Plaintiff in Error.
    Mr. Paul Renau Ingles, for Defendant in Error.
   ROSS, J.

John W. Crenshaw, as administrator with the will annexed, prosecutes this writ of error from a judgment of the district court of Maricopa county, in favor of the estate of which he is administrator, disallowing a demand against the estate.

The defendant in error contends that, inasmuch as the judgment of the lower court was in favor of the estate, the administrator has no right, under the law, to appeal, and moves to dismiss the appeal on that ground. We think the motion should be granted. The administrator is not, and could not be, aggrieved by reason of the judgment of the lower court. “It is a sound proposition that administrators, general or special, like receivers and other trustees or custodians of funds for designated purposes, are not ordinarily affected by orders in reference to their disposition, and therefore will not be heard on appeal from such orders.” In re Welch, 106 Cal. 427, 39 Pac. 805; Schlegel v. Sisson, 8 S. D. 476, 66 N. W. 1087.

We conclude that the administrator in this case has no such interest in the demands of- creditors against the estate as to authorize him to appeal from a judgment disallowing such demands. He is fully protected by the judgment of the district court, and ought not be permitted to use the funds of the estate in prosecuting litigation that cannot involve him in liability.

The motion to dismiss will be granted.

FRANKLIN, C. J., and CUNNINGHAM, J., concur.

NOTE.—As to administrators as appellants or appellees, see note in 119 Am. St. Rep. 754.  