The court found that the objector's proposed mode of distribution was reasonable, equitable, and fair, catering for all beneficiaries. The evidence showed that the deceased did not intend for the estate to be distributed only among the sons, and the petitioner conceded this point. The court held that all children, regardless of sex or marital status, should benefit from the estate, with married daughters receiving a lesser share as they were comfortable in their marriages and did not object to the proposed distribution. The court rejected the petitioner's unproven claim that one property had already been transferred to the sons and included it in the estate for distribution. The protest succeeded, and the estate was distributed as per the objector's proposal, ensuring fairness and compliance with the law.