herefore shown. What the statute clearly means is, that the inventory must be returned before a petition can be filed. It has also been contended that, to illustrate, If A died fifteen years before the change in the law and his administrator was thereupon appointed, if the inventory were not returned until after the change in the law, say fifteen years after the death of A, the return time of the inventory would fix the right and status of the petitioner. This could not be true, because it would be placing a premium on negligence, and the law requires that the inventory shall be returned within three months from the appointment of the administrator (Sec. 1443 C. C. P.) or if the administrator neglects to make such a return within three months, the Court or Judge may extend the time not exceeding two months (Section 1450 C. C. P.). The Court greatly regrets that it is unable to grant the petition herein, as the interests of the widow and minor child are paramount to any other. But under the law as this Court finds it, the petition must be denied. It is so ordered. Dated, February 15, 1922. E. C. Robinson, Judge. IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF IVA MCQUARRIE, DECEASED. SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA (Executors and Administrators; Homestead; Tenancy; TAXES etc.) February 9th, 1922. Proceedings on settlement of final account and petition for distribution. On objections to items expended on homestead. Objections sustained in part and overruled in part and decree directed. 1. COURTS. PROBATE WAIVER OF OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION CLAIM FOR TAX MONEY ADVANCED ON HOMESTEAD. Where husband administering the estate of deceased wife had set set aside to him for five years a homestead, and married again and his present wife on settlement of final account, presents to the court her claim for money advanced for taxes, etc., on such homestead, the court has jurisdiction to determine her claim, and an objection thereto was waived by all parties submitting themselves to the court's jurisdiction. 2. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS REIMBURSEMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR'S WIFE FOR MONEY SPENT FOR ESTATE. Where husband administering deceased wife's estate married again and present wife advanced her separate property for taxes, interest on note and other purposes of the estate, she is entitled to reimbursement of such moneys, with simple interest thereon. 3. HOMESTEAD TENANT TO PAY TAXES. Where a homestead for five years was set off to husband administering deceased wife's estate, he was not on final settlement, entitled to reimbursement for money paid for taxes thereon during homestead tenancy, it being the duty of the homestead tenant to pay them. 4. HOMESTEAD TENANT LIABLE FOR TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENTS. Where a homestead for five years was set off to husband administering deceased wife's estate he was liable personally for the expenses of papering, painting, tinting, etc., rooms in house during his occupancy of same under the homestead and his claim thereof on final settlement of account cannot be allowed. 5. HOMESTEAD FEE OWNER LIABLE FOR PERMAN ENT IMPROVEMENTS. Where a homestead for five years was set off to husband administering deceased wife's estate, he was on final settlement of account entitled to reimbursement for the permanent improvements, that is the costs of sewer ordered by the munici pality, which should be paid by the estate as owner in fee and not by the homestead tenant. E. C. Robinson, Judge. In the Superior Court of the State of California, In the matter of the estate of Iva McQuarrie, deceased. The Court: This matter comes up on settlement of final account and petition for distribution. Iva McQuarrie died leaving certain real and personal property. On March 16, 1916, this Court, Judge Wm. S. Wells, presiding, set aside a homestead to M. D. McQuarrie, the surviving husband, for a limited period, to-wit, five years. Objection has been made by parties interested to certain items included by M. D. McQuarrie, the administrator, as disbursements in the account, as follows: 1. Taxes which accrued during the time he occupied the premises as a homestead; 2. Expense of papering, painting, tinting, etc., rooms in house during the time of occupancy under the homestead. 3. Further objection is made by another party, the present wife of M. D. McQuarrie, to the allowance and settlement of the account without consideration of her claim for reinbursement from the estate for certain moneys she claims to have advanced from her separate property for the payment of taxes, interest on note (allowed claim) and for other purposes in the estate. 4. Objection is also made to the expense of installation of sewer ordered by the municipality and for the benefit of the estate. All parties submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court. Evidence was introduced on several hearings, and after the closing of the testimony it was claimed by the administrator that the objections of the present wife of administrator could not be entertained by the Court, as the Court had no jurisdiction. Having submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court, that objection was waived; and the Court will consider all the objections to the account. Counsel on both sides stated that after diligent search they were unable to find any authority upon any question involved in these objections, either in support of or against them. The first essential question to be determined is whether the homestead tenant or the owner of the fee should pay the taxes during the five-year homestead occupancy. It would seem that the owner of the fee, who has not had the use or enjoyment of the property during the five years, should not be required to pay the tax or for the temporary repairs, such as papering, tinting, painting, etc. It would likewise be equitable and fair that the homestead tenant, having had the use and enjoyment, and received the rents of a portion or all of the premises, should pay for such temporary repairs. The only case the Court has been able to find in the limited time at its disposal, except in dower right cases, is Kelley v. Ball, 19 S. W. 581 (Ky) wherein the Court of Appeals, on page 582 says: "When the property was sold, there was a claim against it for improvements held by the appellant, John S. Kelley, and also unpaid taxes were owing for a considerable sum. The latter were paid by the purchaser of the property, and credit given him. When these claims accrued, the appellant was deriving no benefit from the property. The widow and her own children were alone receiving the benefit of it. The improvements were necessary to its enjoyment. The statute says the owner or possessor of an estate shall pay the taxes. It is true the widow was not a mere tenant, in which case the landlord, in the absence of contract, providing otherwise, should pay the taxes. Nor was she a life tenant, who, as held in Fox v. Long, 8 Bush, 551. must pay them; but she was entitled to the use of the property under the will for a term of years, and took it with the burden of taxation. She received some money of the estate from the executor, which she used in the support of the family, but paid out for the estate as much or more, in the way of funeral expenses and otherwise, for. which she is not asking reimbursement. The lower court properly ordered the Kelley improvement claim paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the property but it is equitable to charge the portion thereof of the widow and her children with the unpaid taxes, to be apportioned between them in the ratio of their interests, inasmuch as they had the use of the property." The equitable rule established in this case will be found to be the rule in dower cases. White v. Dawson, 63 Ill. 54. |