
    
      In re WEINS’ ESTATE. SMITH v. WEINS.
    Mandamus — Leave to Appeal.
    Appeal from certain orders of court below in will contest asking writ of mandamus to compel vacation of said orders is dismissed for failure to obtain leave to prosecute suck an appeal, review, if any, being by mandamus and not by appeal.
    Appeal from Wayne; Jayne (Ira W.), J.
    Submitted January 9, 1940.
    (Docket No. 113, Calendar No. 40,830.)
    Decided April 1, 1940.
    In the matter of the estate of Mary J. Weins, deceased. George A. Weins presented for probate the last will of Mary J. Weins, deceased. Angela B. Weins Smith, contested the allowance of the will. Contest certified to circuit court. Contestant appeals from certain orders.
    Appeal dismissed.
    
      Cleary <& Weins (Maurice Miller, of counsel), for proponents.
    
      Hugh K. Davidson and David E. Hull, for contestant.
   Chandler, J.

This is an appeal, prosecuted as of right by contestant and appellant, from certain orders of the court below, the prayer for relief asking that this court issue its writ of mandamus to compel the vacation of said orders,

The records of this court show that application for leave to appeal was denied. Review, if any, is by mandamus and not by appeal.

Leave to prosecute an appeal in the nature of mandamus was necessary and was not obtained. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. Quail v. Cole, 260 Mich. 642. Appellees will recover costs.

Bushnell, C. J., and Sharpe, Potter, North, Mc-Allister, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.  