In view of the provisions of this section, we are unable to perceive wherein the complaint is lacking in the statement of any fact material to the relief sought. In fact, the formal sufficiency of the [46 P. 382] complaint, with an exception to be hereinafter noted, is not questioned, but it is contended that the provision of section 2853 above quoted is unconstitutional and void, because it contemplates and authorizes the granting of special privileges within the prohibition of article I, section 21, and article IV, section 25, subdivisions 19 and 25, of the constitution of this state. But the statute contravenes neither of those provisions.
From this order Antonio has appealed. [5 Cal.Unrep. 495] The court found ‘that the revocation of the waiver of said Antonio of his right to act as such administrator, and his request for the appointment of said Enos, as stated in the findings herein, was without reason in fact, but such revocation was solely on the ground that said Antonio had changed his mind in relation thereto’; and, as a conclusion of law, found ‘that said revocation by said Silvar was not authorized in law, and was for that reason void.’ The principal grounds urged upon the appeal are that the request of Antonio for the appointment of Enos was obtained by fraud, and was made upon the agreement by Enos that he would withdraw whenever Antonio should so wish, and that since making the request Enos had manifested such hostility to the rights of Antonio as to justify the withdrawal of his request.