On Petition For Rehearing
Bierly, J.— Appellant filed a petition requesting a rehearing in the above entitled cause and assigns therein certain alleged errors contained in the opinion by this court.
Appellant asserts that this court has altered or modified the law governing the standard of scrupulous integrity required of an executor or an administrator as a personal representative of the estate; also, that this court erred in holding that an administrator, who, also, acts as an attorney for himself, need not notify counsel provided for- the insurer [Farm Bureau Insurance Company], that a motion for a change of venue had been presented to him by plaintiff’s counsel and the administrator agreed to that change of venue; and, further, that this court failed to answer a substantial question as to whether the position of the appellee in acting as his own attorney is not in conflict with his responsibilities as an administrator.
Appellant’s argument will be approached and disposed of in the order as presented. It was a burden of appellant to prove that the conduct of appellee as administrator did not meet the required standard of an administrator or personal representative.
*532A review of the evidence presented by the record in this cause failed to demonstrate conduct of the appellee which would not fulfill the standard set forth in Helm, v. Odle, Admrs. etc. (1945), 129 Ind. App. 478, 157 N. E. 2d 584. It was incumbent upon appellant to produce evidence of probative value to sustain his burden of proof, and we may not reverse upon supposition, speculation or conjecture.
We are of the opinion that this court has not modified the standard of conduct announced in the Helm, case, supra.
Thence appellant argues that as attorney for himself as administrator, a duty was imposed upon appellee to notify counsel for the insurer [Farm Bureau Insurance Company], of the motion for a change of venue before the agreement of a change of venue had been assented to by him. However, appellant has failed to produce or present cogent authority in support of this argument. It appears that appellant has supported his argument only by the statement that appellee’s failure to notify counsel for the insurer was in violation of the standard of scrupulous integrity. As stated in our opinion, the record discloses that the actions of the appellee in agreeing to a change of venue was predicated upon good faith and not adverse to the interests of the estate.
Finally, appellant argues that this court failed to answer a question as to whether a position of Floyd L. Young as attorney for appellee conflicts with his duty and obligation as administrator. Specifically appellant implies that the interests of appellee were adverse to the estate.
We again reiterate that in our opinion, we held that the record of evidence most favorable to appellee fails to demonstrate conduct by appellee favorable to plaintiff’s cause. The petition for re-hearing is hereby denied.
Smith, P.J., Hunter and Mote, J.J., concur.
Note. — Reported in 212 N. E. 2d 404. Rehearing denied in 213 N. E. 2d 347.