*1 525 general being only public. case, the facts Such war- injury rant the conclusion that of Harraden was re- employment, ceived in the course of his likewise compel injury the inference that his out of em- arose ployment meaning spirit, purpose, within the Compensation supra.” Act, Workmen’s In re Harraden (1917), App. 298, 66 Ind. E. 142. N. Stipulated Supplemental Stipulated Where the Facts and compel contrary Facts a conclusion to that reached Board, it is the of this court to reverse the denial of law, King award the Board as matter of Corp. Illinois Steel App. 456, 176 N. E. 161. v. undisputed being paid facts that was employer’s place travel business being paid injured while injury and that such arose employment out of his lead us to the conclusion that finding contrary of the Industrial Board was to law. Therefore, the decision of the Industrial Board is reversed. fixing damages The case is remanded to the Board for sistent with Act.

Judgment reversed. P.J., Faulconer,

Wickens, J., J., Prime, concur. Reported in 221 E. 2d N. 435. Note. — Young, Der Lieth Administrator Von Lieth. Estate of Von Der 20,327. Filed December denied [No. January 19, 1966. Transfer denied November 1966.] *2 appellant. Vincennes, for Emison, & Emison Floyd Vincennes, appellee. Young, for L. by ap- appeal an action filed arises from J. —This

Bierly, decedent, to remove the Administrator pellant, father of the alleging Lieth, mis- Wendy von der Estate of Cullen Wendy Lieth, intestate on Decedent, died von der Cullen unliquidated May 12, claim for dam- left an 1962. Decedent ages by injury personal to James C. Baker. reason (hereinafter attorney representing referred Baker James C. against attorney) desired to file a claim to as her had not decedent, administration of estate estate of attorney, correspondence opened. been Plaintiff’s representative Bureau Insurance of the Farm Com- claims urged appellant, be pany for that decedent’s estate and counsel privity appellant, opened or someone and that appointed be as reluctant family? administrator capacity normally invade this which is filled a member of family. Appellant declined to serve administrator and might indicated ap- it was immaterial to him be who pointed personal representative of the estate. Plaintiff’s requested administration, to file letters did, subsequently appointed which he April 13, against on 1963. Suit was then filed the estate ask- damages Appellee $500,000. the sum of an entered appearance for himself as administrator of the Wendy estate of Cullen von der Lieth. April 1963, appellee

On wrote the Farm In- Bureau. Company, Indiana, surance Vincennes, enclosed complaint by plaintiff, summons and in the suit filed James May 7, 1963, Houston, Baker. On John Assistant Claims Manager insurer, appellee informing answered policy $100,000 injuries was limited to to one person $400,000 prayer complaint would *3 unprotected. be Mr. Houston stated presumed further that he appellee the of interest was to some extent identical to that plaintiff. Appellee stating answered letter this therein presumption appellee’s that the identical that interest was plaintiff with that of Appellee expressed was an insult. also willingness cooperate faithfully to the end that he could carry out his as duties administrator. upon

Appellee then embarked a course to determine the policy. facts of the claim and the terms of the insurance How- ever, appears that his efforts were of no avail because of cooperation attorneys. the insurer lack of and its 20, plaintiff’s 1963, attorney On November appel- called at going lee’s office in and told him Vincennes that he was to file change County motion for of venue from a Knox and asked agree county. they attorney on appellee a Plaintiff’s agreed County. to venue the cause to Sullivan Plaintiff’s at- torney go County the venue to wanted to Sullivan as it would long repre- trip trip him a short for

be a agreed County senting Appellee on be- Sullivan insurer. Judge judge. respected as a trial cause he Lowdermilk attorneys representing no- insurer not receive The did they change nor tice the motion for of venue consulted they concerning days notice later received same. Two agreement change County. The to Sullivan timely ob- is devoid of evidence to the effect that record ruling change. jected granting of the trial court he read herein testified when Petitioner sought consulting granted him, without he had been of venue concerning attorney he as he felt same was out his acting appellee being as represented he learned was but, only also, for as an the estate. an individual agreement July months after seven On petition appellant for removal of filed his venue, grounds mis- as therefor did the assets of the estate in concerning appellant his intention to seek not consult with being appellee, administrator; appointment himself, entered into an record for counsel third of venue without with prior sulting counsel the two record. to remove as adminis- refused trial court

The thereafter, appellant’s and, motion for a new overruled trator assigned overruling error of this motion trial. herein. charged that the outset, must state

At the mismanagement proving the burden degree disqualify by appellee in sufficient estate *4 of his furtherance the exercise duties from the appeal of said estate. On are limited upon the record to base our review contents upon affirmatively devolves It thus the case. part upon the of the trial error court. demonstrate

529 v. (1959), Odle, In Admrx. App. 478, Helm etc. 129 Ind. 584, N. 2d court held: 157 E. this jurisdiction probate “The is settled that a law well court great

has latitude and wide discretion in matters concern appointments removal of administrators and the attempt administratrices, court and this will therein, control or interfere the Probate action with Courts’ except in a case where it its discretion has is clear v. Ripa Superior been abused. ex Lake State rel. Court (1942), 436, 871, 220 Ind. 2d cited. N. E. authorities v. Haughey Haughey App. See also discussing E.N. and authorities cited. In Probate discretion, Court’s this court Haughey stated in the case of Haughey, supra, p. at 320: “ ‘However, duty exercising judges probate it is the jurisdiction vigorous aggressive honesty to evince dealing guardians, administrators, trustees, and other reposed end that the trusts in them shall be executed scrupulous integrity complete confidence prevail. terested in If faithfully discharged, no one in- ultimately this estate any will have reason to ” complain appointment made.’ principle It settled appeal is well of law that an court will the decision of except not disturb a trial court is clear the court abused its reviewing discretion. As a court we must determine on the evidence most favor- able the appellee, whether or not the imposed upon the trust ducted scrupulous him with integrity, judgment excepted. mistakes paramount appellant’s argument elements in

One of the agreeing the action of concerns the Knox cause transfer said of action to the Circuit Court Sullivan attorneys for the insurer Court when Circuit with- by Supreme prescribed out notice as Court Eule 1-16. requires copy every that a motion Rule 1-16 be served upon party. of record for each each There obligation give fore, upon plaintiff’s notice rested attorney. appellee could have While consulted with the assenting agreeing for the insurer before *5 County, he did nevertheless of venue to Sullivan to a guilty or of misconduct so, do not deem not do and we record, opinion the that in are the derelict his duties light determination, the con- evinces court’s in of the trial duty devolving upon appellee any trary. are not aware We imposed upon plain- perform the duties law were to which attorney. tiff’s op- attorneys insurer were

Presumptively, the upon first County, as posed to the of venue to Sullivan they knowledge that fails to disclose of the same the record ruling timely objected when of the court at time However, months later notice. seven were without appellee and commenced this action removal Sullivan was his the the the best interests of in appeal this arriving in a cause or case on at a decision

In figures on in set forth words to the record court is limited degree interpreted in in oral page, some printed cold the contesting parties, attorneys for the argument by interested during judgment sits in court who trial is the noting hearing testimony witnesses, trial, course charged atmosphere responses, and in a interests, their their determining testimony or to believe which room court of the arriving conflict, thence at the same is disbelieve fitting proper to the end finding court deems may prevail. justice to believe leads us most favorable The evidence to discuss the insurer were reluctant fruits of appellee or to disclose to claim with general investigation. tenor record of the their extensive attempts by appellee assistance any to be of is that us before $400,000 limits of the over the excess defense in the cooperation. a lack of policy thwarted aspects of this cause have been some there While appellee in his refusal with- judgment of questioned administrator, draw as legally, we find no error in the administrator' course of his of said estate, particularly when appointed the trial court appel- who lee is the better able to decide the matter as above indicated. probative

The evidence of value appel- fails to disclose that lee was remiss administrator, charged duties as such by appellant complaint. in his

Discovering finding judgment no error in the trial court in appellee, favor of opinion we are of the *6 judgment said should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Hunter Mote, J., concur; Smith, J., J. participating. not

On Petition For Appellant petition requesting filed a a rehear- Bierly, J. — ing assigns in the above entitled cause and therein certain opinion by errors contained in the this court.

Appellant asserts that this court has altered or modified governing scrupulous integrity law the standard of re- quired of personal rep- an executor or an administrator as a estate; also, resentative of the this court erred in hold- ing who, administrator, that an also, attorney an himself, notify provided need not counsel for- the insurer Company], Bureau Insurance [Farm that a motion for a change presented by of venue had been to him coun- agreed sel and the administrator venue; to that further, and, this court failed to answer a substantial question position appellee acting as to whether the of the in as his own is not in responsibilities conflict with his an administrator. Appellant’s argument approached disposed will be inof presented. appellant

the order as It was a burden of prove to the conduct of as administrator required did not meet the standard of an administrator representative. personal or in this presented the record

A the evidence review of conduct failed to demonstrate cause Helm, Odle, forth in set would not fulfill standard It App. E. 2d Admrs. etc. 157 N. proba upon appellant produce evidence was incumbent proof, and we burden of tive value sustain his speculation conjecture. upon supposition, or reverse opinion not modified that this court has We are Helm, supra. case, of conduct announced in the standard argues that for himself as appellant Thence notify imposed upon appellee to administrator, Company], Bureau Insurance for the insurer counsel [Farm change of before the motion for a However, him. of venue had been assented cogent authority produce present appellant has or failed sup- argument. appears support It has of this only by appellee’s argument ported statement notify counsel for the insurer was violation failure to opinion, integrity. scrupulous in our As stated standard agree- discloses that the actions the record good predicated upon faith and of venue was to a to the interests *7 argues Finally, appellant that this court failed to answer a Young Floyd position question as whether L. obliga- conflicts with his implies Specifically tion as administrator. interests that the again opinion, reiterate that our we held that

We favorable to fails demon- record of evidence most by appellee conduct favorable cause. The strate re-hearing hereby petition for denied. Mote, J.J.,

Smith, P.J., Hunter and concur. Reported in 212 N. E. 2d denied in Note. — 213 N. E. 2d 347.