SARAH KING-HOWARD, Attorney in Fact for ENID BUCHANAN, JOSEPH W. GARBER, Attorney in Fact for MARY JANE RATAZZI, and MILLIE BUCHANAN COOPER, by her Husband, JULIUS E. COOPER, Appellants, v. JUAH E. KARPEH and J. GBARFLEN DAVIES,

Commissioner of Probate, Montserrado County. APPEAL FROM RULING IN CHAMBERS ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION TO THE MONTHLY AND PROBATE COURT OF MONTSERRADO COUNTY. Argued March 12, 1964. Decided May 22, 1964. 1. The administration of a decedent’s estate by a commissioner of probate is reviewable only for error of law or abuse of discretion. 2. The requirement that a will cannot be admitted to probate, prior to one calendar month after it has been offered for probate does not restrict the court from exercising its supervisory powers over the estate before the expiration of that period of time. 3. The appointment of administrators pendente lite to conserve the property of a decedent’s estate pending determination as to which, if either, of two documents offered as wills should be admitted to probate is not an abuse of discretion by a commissioner of probate. 4. Pending appeal of a ruling in Chambers denying an application for a writ of prohibition to a commissioner of probate, the Justice presiding in Chambers may order the appointment of administrators pendente lite. R. Sup. Ct. XII (3). Appellants applied to the Justice presiding in Chambers for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent commissioner of probate from appointing administrators pendente lite of a decedent’s estate pending determination of a contest as to which, if either, of two documents offered as wills should be admitted to probate. The Justice presiding in Chambers denied the application for a writ of prohibition and ordered the commissioner of probate to appoint the administrators pendente lite and to direct them to assume control of the estate pending disposition of appellants’ appeal to the full Court. On 11 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 12 appeal, the full Court affirmed the ruling of the Justice presiding in Chambers. Clarence L. Simpson, Sr., for appellants. A. Morgan for appellees. Lawrence MR. Court. JUSTICE MITCHELL delivered the opinion of the This case of prohibition took its root from a ruling made by the Commissioner of Probate for Montserrado County in the exercise of his surrogate function to appoint administrators pendente lite to supervise the estate of Thomas Eric Buchanan pending a disposition of a contest involving two purported wills of the aforesaid decedent. The petition out of which this appeal has grown, as filed in the Chambers of Mr. Justice Wardsworth by the within-named appellants on February 8, 1962, contained eight counts reading as follows : “1. That the petitioners are legal heirs and legatees under the last will and testament of the late Thomas Eric Buchanan, which last will and testament was offered for probate in the Monthly and Probate Court of Montserrado County and has been contested by Juah E. Karpeh, also an heir and legatee under the said last will and testament; moreover, she has also offered for probate another will of the deceased which was presented and offered by her to the probate court on January 29, 1962, as will more fully appear by copy of said will marked Exhibit A, hereto attached to form a part of this petition. z. And also because petitioners aver that since the offer- of the subsequent will on January 29, 1962, by Juah E. Karpeh, the 3o-day period ” – LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 13 “3. “4. � “5. within which the will should be probated has not expired; and that, without the submission of any petition to court, His Honor, J. Gbarflen Davies, correspondent herein, summoned the petitioners and respondent Juah E. Karpeh to appear in court and name a representative each, whom the court intends to appoint as administrators pendente lite, to take over and administer the estate of the late Thomas E. Buchanan before the said will is probated, which petitioners maintain is contrary to the requisite legal procedure to be adhered to in reference to the probation and registration of a will, as will more fully appear by copy of the summons attached and marked Exhibit C to form a part hereof. And petitioners further aver that they, on February 8, 1962, in keeping with the summons, appeared before His Honor, J. Gbarflen Davies, and objected to the precedure as assumed and pursued by the court; but His Honor, J. Gbarflen Davies, over and above petitioners’ objections, ruled that administrators be appointed, as will more fully appear by copy of said objection and ruling, being a part of the probate court’s records, hereto attached and marked Exhibit D to form a part of this petition. And petitioners further aver that said proceedings were not conducted in conformity with those rules which ought to be observed at all times; and therefore, petitioners submit, prohibition will lie. And also because petitioners submit that in so far as they knew, there exists no statute authorizing the probate commissioner to appoint anyone as administrator pendente lite in the 14 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS instant case where the deceased Thomas Eric Buchanan died testate even though his last will and testament are being contested and the legal issues relative to their genuineness or validity have yet to be determined by the appropriate legal forum. “Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, petitioners pray that Your Honor will order the alternative writ of prohibition issued against the above-named respondents, restraining and prohibiting them from appointing said administrators pendente lite because, indeed and in truth, the appointment of such administrators would entail extra expense on the estate which might work a hardship to petitioners ; and that Your Honor will cause them to be summoned to appear before you and show cause, if any they have, why the peremptory writ of prohibition should not issue against them; and that Your Honor will grant unto your petitioners such other and further relief as the nature of the case may require, and the ends of justice demand.” Upon the filing of the foregoing petition, it became the duty of the Justice before whom it was filed to order the respondents upon the alternative writ to file their returns and appear for a hearing of the pro et con to determine whether the peremptory writ would lie; but we will stop here for a while and proceed to quote herein respondents’ returns, which read as follows : “1. Because respondents say that on January 5, 1962, formal objections were filed by them against the admission into probate of a will and codicil dated May 8, 1958, and July 18, 196o, respectively, as being the genuine last will and testament of Thomas E. Buchanan, late of the City of Monrovia, and offered for probate on January 25, 1962, another will executed on July 23, 1959, by the said Thomas E. Buchanan as being his genuine last will and testament. In answer to LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 15 respondents’ objections to the admission to probate of the will of May 8, 1958, petitioners denied the validity of the will of July 23, 1959, on grounds set out in said answer, which issues are still pending for determination by the Monthly and Probate Court of Montserrado County. That, predicated upon respondents’ objections to 2. the admission into probate of the will of May 8, 1958, together with the codicil, as well as petitioners’ attack upon the validity of the will of July 23, 1959, which was subsequently offered for probate by respondents, His Honor the respondent commissioner, in the exercise of his surrogate functions and the duties devolved upon him as commissioner of probate, and guardian of estates, summoned the parties together and requested them to nominate two persons who might be appointed by the court as administrators pendente lite for the purpose of safeguarding the properties of the estate and saving the estate from waste during the pendency of the objections to the two wills. This act on the part of the commissioner is legal and in keeping with his authority. “3. That pursuant to the attacks made upon the will of July 23, 1959, by petitioners, the said petitioners did formally, on February 23, 1962, file objections to the admission into probate of the said will of July 23, 1959. Respondents submit that the petition for the alternative writ of prohibition should be dismissed because there is no showing in said petition that the respondent commissioner had no jurisdiction over the matter of the estate of the late Thomas E. Buchanan, or that, having jurisdiction, he exceeded said jurisdiction or proceeded according to rules contrary to those that ought 16 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS to be observed at all times. For it is within the province and jurisdiction of the commissioner of probate where an estate, as in this case, has been placed in suspense by the objections to the will, thereby making it impossible to qualify the nominated executors or executrix, leaving no person to handle the affairs of the estate, for the commissioner of probate to appoint persons to serve as administrators pendente lite and thereby safeguard the interests of the estate. “5. That the method pursued by the respondent commissioner of probate being within the jurisdiction and competence of his court in a proceeding to appoint administrators pendente lite, said respondent commissioner is entitled to exercise his discretion in the matter before him. Respondents submit that, the court having jurisdiction of both the subject matter and of the persons, prohibition will not lie since the respondent commissioner was entitled to exercise his discretion in the matter before him; and the writ of prohibition cannot control such exercise to prevent it being made in any manner within the jurisdiction of the court; and therefore this Court could not review the merits of the cause upon the application for the writ of prohibition.” After the Justice conducted a hearing he made a ruling from which this appeal has been taken, which ruling he closed in these words: “It is obvious that the commissioner of probate has acted upon the authority of the law in the appointment of the administrators pendente lite for the express purpose of preserving the estate of the late Thomas E. Buchanan pending the final disposition of the objections to the alleged wills offered for probation. In view of the foregoing, the petition of petitioners for the issuing of the peremptory writ of prohibition LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 17 is hereby denied with costs against the petitioners. And it is so ordered.” As we have said before, petitioners became dissatisfied and excepted to the said ruling; meanwhile they requested an appeal for their case to be brought before this Court en banc for review. The appeal was granted ; but in the exercise of his discretion to protect the estate from waste, and also for the purpose of conserving the interests of the parties therein concerned, the Justice applied Part 3 of Rule XII of the Revised Rules of this Court (13 L.L.R. 704) , under which he ordered the probate commissioner, one of the respondents herein, to proceed to appoint the administrators pendente lite and direct them to assume control until such time as the full Court had disposed of the appeal. Appellants, then petitioners, again excepted to the application of this rule and also made that a ground of their appeal. When this case was called and heard on March 12, 1964, appellants’ counsel centered his argument on three main issues: ( ) that the law requires the expiration of 3o days after the offer of a will in probate before action can be taken thereon and that it was before the expiration of 3o days when the probate commissioner, sua sponte, summoned the parties to come forward and nominate two persons to be appointed administrators pendente lite, which was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the statutes; (2) that unless either or both of the parties who had offered the two wills for probate appeared and requested the probate commissioner to appoint administrators pendente lite in the estate, the court was not authorized by law to do so ; hence, by doing so, the court acted contrary to the rules which should be observed at all times in such cases, especially since this action was taken over the strong objections of the appellant; and (3) that it was the ruling of the Chambers Justice which affirmed the act of the probate commissioner in appointing the administrators pendente lite which they sought to 18 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS have reviewed because they held the view that the court had erred ; and to order the identical act continued was in violation of the law which gives the right of appeal; so that if, regardless of the appeal to the full Court, the Justice ordered the enforcement of the respondent commissioner’s ruling, the right of appeal would be nullified as a supersedeas. The respondent argued that prohibition was not the proper remedy and that therefore the appeal should be dismissed as without merit; and further, that the application of the rule of Court was within the sole discretion of the Justice presiding in Chambers. Dilating on the points of argument, we have to make it positively clear that the law makes the probate commissioner guardian of all estates, whether testate or intestate; and his exercise of discretion is not subject to review except for error of law or departure from standards of good conscience. It is a requirement of law that a will cannot be admitted to probate sooner than one calendar month after it has been offered ; but this provision is made expressly for the purpose of affording sufficient time in which objections may be filed thereto if there be any person or persons desiring to do so ; and the law does not restrict the court from exercising its supervisory powers over the estate if good reason arises for so doing within the one month period. In this case, both wills offered were contested ; and it was within the province of the respondent commissioner to have sought or provided some way to secure and protect the interests of the estate against waste; moreover, the law does not require that the probate commissioner sit idle and refuse or hesitate to take measures for the preservation of a contested estate merely because the parties in interest make no formal application for ad interim supervision. This would surely connote the incapability of the judge to exercise the functions of his office. “Where the performance of an official duty or act involves the exercise of judgment or discretion, the LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 19 officer cannot ordinarily be controlled with respect to the particular action he will take in the matter.” King v. Howard, [1946] LRSC 1; 9 L.L.R. 135 (1946), Syllabus 2. As we have said before, the law gives the probate commissioner jurisdiction over all estates. Within the scope of that jurisdiction, the law gives him the right to exercise his discretion in the handling of estates to prevent waste and illegal control ; hence, in our opinion, he was authorized by law to appoint administrators pendente lite; nor can this be properly termed an abuse or arbitrary exercise of discretion. Therefore, prohibition will not lie against him in this case. “It is unfortunate that, in the administration of decedent estates, facts, circumstances, acts, and dispositions are easily characterized as unjust and improper. In order to safeguard all legitimate interests from the devious machinations of would-be speculators our probate courts have been accorded broad discretionary powers, the exercise of which is not circumscribed by ordinary legal procedures.” Dennis v. Weeks, L.L.R. 317, 318-319 (1952). In an effort to make our point of view still more clear for better understanding, we quote as follows from common-law authorities : . . . administrator pendente lite . . . a special administrator appointed by the probate court to take charge of the property of a decedent’s estate pending a contest or other delay in the appointment of an executor or administrator of the estate.” BALLENTINE, LAW DICTIONARY 40 Administrator (1948 ed.) . “The application for the appointment of a temporary administrator is no part of the proceeding for the probate of a will. It is an independent proceeding for the preservation of the estate (pending litigation) .. . and resting in the discretion of the surrogate.” Matter of Blair, 6o Hun. (N.Y. 1891) 523, 526, 15 N.Y.S. 212, 214. And lastly, we quote the following authority : . 20 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS “An administrator pendente lite has been said to be not properly the representative of decendent, as is the general administrator, but rather an appointee, or officer of the court, his office closely resembling that of a receiver in chancery. His duties were originally merely to collect the effects, file an inventory, and hold and care for the property of the estate until the pending suit terminated. . . .” 24 C.J. 1179 Executors and Administrators � 2802. Coming now to the last point of appellants’ argument which opposes the application of Part 3 of Rule XII of the Revised Rules of this Court by the Chambers Justice, we do not hesitate to say that it does not appear to have been an assumption of a right or an arbitrary exercise of discretion under the rule. Since there was an estate which no one was authorized to administer because both of the wills offered for probate had been contested, the properties of the testator required supervision. Exceptions had been taken to the effort of the probate commissioner to place said properties under some tentative control; and the moment a petition was filed for remedial writ against the probate commissioner, every act of the respondent was brought to a standstill until the matter had been determined in Chambers. After a ruling had been made denying the writ, the instant appeal was taken, as of right to the full Court. It was therefore fair and legal for the Justice presiding in Chambers, from whose ruling the appeal was taken, to exercise his sound discretion to obviate miscarriage and a waste of the properties of the estate. This Court is master of its rules and may enforce them according to circumstances, necessities and demands. The rule in question reads as follows : “Upon a hearing had under such alternative writ, an absolute writ may be issued directing the performance, or nonperformance, or cessation of any act, which to the Court or Justice thereof may seem LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 21 just, legal or equitable, subject to appeal to the Supreme Court upon such conditions as the Justice may prescribe.” R. Sup. Ct. XII (3), 13 L.L.R. 704. This rule places the condition within the absolute discretion of the Chambers Justice, to be applied for the exclusive purpose of averting failure of justice without abuse or infringement of the rights of the parties. This rule is one of long standing in our Court procedure and practice. It was revised by this Court in 1915 and revised again in 1959 ; yet it has not lost its aim and purpose because it is intended to promote the ends of impartial justice and should be applied to protect and preserve the rights of parties in litigation against abuse. Considering the manner in which the application of the rule was made and the purpose for which it was invoked, we cannot agree with appellants’ argument that the application was adverse to his legal interests, nor can we harmonize our views with his to say that there was not an urgent and positive necessity for the said rule to have been applied in the manner in which it was applied. On the contrary, it appears to us logical and legal for such an order to have been given by the Justice presiding in Chambers to preserve the interests of the appellants as well as those of all other parties interested in the estate of Thomas Eric Buchanan ; otherwise, the estate might well have become a prey for the hungry lions of personal aggrandizement. Since the respondent commissioner did have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties at the time and it has not been shown that the court below proceeded by rules other than those which should be observed at all times in such matters, and also because the invocation of Part 3 of Rule XII of the Revised Rules of this Court by ordering the appointment of the administrators pendente lite pending the final determination of the appeal in this case was not an abuse of said rule by the Justice presiding in Chambers, we are of the unanimous