Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1902-04-09
Opinion by Massey, C. J.

|
by complaint and summons in the Dis
trict Court against the respondent as
Administrator Of the Estate Of Sam
uel Bowman. deceased. by which they
sought to recover a judgment for $500
Tor attorneys fees. payable out OF
the estate OF the decedent. The de-
murrer interposed by The respondent /
was sustained. and appellants refus /,
ing to amend judgment was rendered |
thereon against them. From this |
judgment they have appealed.
The question presented here in |
wolves the action Of the court III sus-
tanning the demurrer. The aVerments
of tbs complaint material to the
question decided. are. that on the -
day OF August 1899 the respondent
as administrator employed appellants
as attorneys to assist in TIE course of
the administration of the estate Of
the deceased: that thereupcn the ap
peilants rendered legal services to
respondent III and about said admin
lstratlOn, and continued SO to act I'M
til the 3rd day OF April. 1901. when
said employment was terminated by
the respondent: that the services rem
dered were reasonably worth the sum
of $500
30551 of the Act to regulate the set
Element of the estates OF deceased
persons, il is provided among oshar
matters, that all proceedings in mat
tiers OF estate shall he proceedings of
record as other actions and proceed
ings. and that all attorneys for eS-
tates. executors or administrators. or
appointed III the PROCEEDINGS. shall
be attorneys OF record with like
powers and responsibilities as atttor-
neys in other actions and proceedings
and shall be entitled 10 receive a
reasonable compensation 10 be paid
out of TIE estate they InsDectivel.
represent for services rendered to be
allowed by the court.
No such provision as the above IS
found in our old Probate Act. and IN
der that act there was 10 a,it horit '
given TO the administrator EXPRESSLY
to create the relation Of attorney OF
record of an estate or an administra
tor or executor. II necessary. the
excel; or OF administrator was auth
orized to employ counsel in parti
cular matter. but sucD en- ploymen
was terminated by the disposal 0
that matter. The allowance for sycl
services IVES made. not TO the cOun
sell but to the administrator as
part OF the necessary expenses of ad
ministratiOn.
Gen. Stats. 1885. Sec. 2SSS;
Douglas V. Folsom II New 446;
Estate CT Nicholson. New SIS
Lucich V Medin 8 New 1O4
1t Will be observed that the pro
visions OF the new act not onl
change rte rule as it existed unde
the old one put also create. as W
believe. an exclusive remedy for tn
recovery for such services agains
the estate in the hands Of the admin
iStratOr Or executor Now the g,
ecufor or administrator is a1thori;
ed to employ general counsel sue
counsel are attorneys of record: fee
for their services are made a dreC
charge against the estate. and are a
lowed to the attorneys employed
They are not required to look 20 tn
administrator for their fees. BY tn
provision OF the later act the admir-
lstrafOr or executor has no authOrit
to fix the fees to be charged agains
the estate for such services. Sue
power is reposed in the court and n
formal suit is necessary. To whs
end? That there may be speedy an
inexpensive settlements of estates
that justic may be done all. VIII
then should the estate be put to tn
expense of tria! when all rights {
the appellants are secured and pr
tected by this provision? The We
dict of the jury might or might NJ
be binding uron the court. The /
medy provided is both ample and e
elusive Whether the administratt
or executor is personally liable und'
his contract Of employment. and VIII
ther the ordinary action lies for SIG
services against the alministratt
personally or individually is not pr
sented by this record. and is not co
sidered or determined. We do no
that for the services alleged the @
binary action will not lie to obtain
judgment binding the estate in Il
hands OF the admins rator or exec
tor. The judgment will therefore
affirmed.
We concur.
Relknap. J.
Fitzgerald. j.