Case ID: ny_49/html/0667-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Folger, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daniel Morgan, Respondent, v. Sarah E. M. Hannas.
    A guardian will not be allowed an extra compensation for services, although noi strictly within the line of his duties; as where the guardian is an attorney and counselor-at-law, he cannot charge for professional services rendered in the affairs of his ward, but is restricted to the statutory allowance. Neither an order of a surrogate, before the services are rendered, directing the performance thereof, and fixing the extra compensation, nor an order ratifying and allowing it, will legalize the charge.
    (Argued April 25, 1872;
    decided April 30, 1872.)
    Where annual rests in the accounts of an executor or other trustee are required by the special direction of a court, in order to charge the trustee with interest, or where required by a rule of court or by provision of statute, full commissions may be computed upon the amount, excluding re-investments of principal. H a guardian has made and filed his accounts annually, as required by statute (chap. 460, § 57, Laws of 1837), he may be allowed commissidns in full upon each account.
    Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, affirming surrogate’s decree settling respondent’s accounts as guardian." The questions presented and the holdings appear above.
    
      M. H. Throop for the appellant.
    
      Frcmois Kernczn for the respondent.
   Folger, J.,

reads opinion for reversal of judgment of Supreme Court and decree of surrogate, and that proceedings be remitted.

All concur, except Rapallo; J., not voting.

Judgment accordingly.