Amador ledger. (Jackson, Amador County, Calif.) 1875-19??, 1901-06-14
Supreme Court Decision.

In our last issue we made mention of
the decision of the Supreme Court IN
the Brignole Estate. The full text Of
the decision is as follows:
Sacramento Dept, No. 721, May 81,
l9Ol. Brignole Estate. Jos. Morizio
VS.. Vincent and ]. c. Brignole. Reed
and Nusbaumer and R. B. Tappan for
Morizio; VIM. j. MCGEE for Brirnole
Estate.
This is an appeal taken by one OF
three executors from decree of final
settlement and an order fixing the
value OF legal service. The estate was
valued at ninety -four thousand dollars.
The administration was all fair sailing.
There was no dispute or controversy
about anything. 1t was mere matter
of going through the forms and wait
ing for the lapse of the time required.
In the final settlement the Court allow
ed an account of the services rendered
two of the executors $3.50, and the same
amount for the appellant, Morizio, for
the services of his attorneys. Ger
tainly this was enough, especially for
the appellant, whose attorneys appar-
emily rendered very little service. The
trouble seems to be that Morizio en-
ployed three attorneys, MCGEE, Tappan
and Simpson. During the administra-
ton the executor discharged his at
torneys and employed Tappan alone as
his attorney. In the decree settling
the final account the court allowed the
executor $4,000 on account of services
rendered by MCGEE, and $500 for SER
vices rendered by Tappan and Simpson.
The point is made that as Tappan is
shown to have rendered some services
after his employment the court was
bound to make an allowance on account
OF them. But this is not so. It must
also find, to justify such allowance,
that the executors needed the service
OF an attorney, and that the services
were worth something to the estate.
II in this case the court had expressly
found that the services of Tappan were
OF no value to the estate, and had
therefore allowed nothing on account
OF them, there is nothing in the record
which in such case would necessitate q
reversal
The executor is paid a commission
for certain services. If he employs an
attorney to do such work instead of do
ing it himself, the court ought not to
make an allowance for it. Such SER
vices should be paid for by the executor
himself. Otherwise, the estate is made
to pay twice for the same services. It
is a question whether the affidavit of
Mr.. Tappan shows the rendition of
any service which was needed by the
estate, or was of advantage to it.
There is statement in the bill of
exceptions, which, as 1 understand it,
is to the effect that at the time the final
account was settled, the court was not
aware that Tappan demanded any pay
for services, apart from the claim of
MCGEE and Simpson. This being so,
the court must have estimated the
value OF all the legal service rendered
to Morizio at $3.50, which was allowed.
This is conclusive. If because of some
unwise bargain Morizio owes Tappan
more, he nevertheless cannot collect is
from the estate. The court has no
power, in the absence OF stipulation,
to fix an attorneys fee in an estate,
but it can and must determine whether
a fee charged is reasonable sum to be
charged to the estate on account OF
legal services rendered to the estate.
The order and decree appealed from
are affirmed. TEMPLE,
We concur: MCFARLAND, j. HEN
SHAW, j..