Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-09-21
JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT
In Per Curtain Rescript Handed
Down in Washington County Case.

Judgment for defendant is given IT
the per curtain rescript handed down,
Friday, from the law court in the
| Washington county case of George Nj.
Hayes ct AL, executors, VS.. Leo d.
Lamond, involving 100000 estate.
The text of the rescript is as follows:
The plaintiffs were executors of the
estate of William O. Grady compris-
ing assets of the value of $9S190. 1t
is provided by the statute that the
executors may be allowed "a commits
sion not exceeding five per cent on
the amount of personal assets that
come into their hands, and in cases
where legal counsel is necessary,
reasonable sum for professional aid
The plaintiffs employed the de-
PENDANT who is an attorney at-law
to render them professional and other
assistance in the settlement of the
estate 1t appears from the uneon-
tradicted testimony that outside of
two trips to Boston and New York.
made by the plaintiffs with the de-
PENDANT, the expenses of which were
paid out of the estate the only actual
service rendered by the plaintiffs per-
sonally was to sign checks, and that
the defendant, in addition to legal
services kept the books and ala
everything else pertaining to the set
tlement of the estate" For all OF
these services, legal and clerical, the
plaintiffs paid the defendant the sum
of $4,000.
But upon the presentation to the
probate court of the second account
of the executors, objection to the al
lowance thereof was made by the
heirs and legatees interested in the
estate. and thereupon a written agree
ment was uttered into by the parties
interested to submit the account to
referee who should determine what
should constitute proper charges ana
the amount thereof in said account"
II was determined by the referee
after notice and hearing that COM
mission of four per cent. of the
amount of the personal assets in the
aggregate should be allowed to the
executors for their services. and the
further sum of s2S30.7o for services
and expenses of the defendant en-
ployed by them to render professional
aid in the settlement of the estate
IT appears that the judge OF probate
refused to allow to the plaintiffs the
sum of $4,000 for professional AID liz
the settlement of the estate and the
plaintiffs bring this action against
the defendant to recover the dlHef-
ence between the $4,000 actually paid
by them for all the services rendered
by him and the sum of $2S30.i0 al
lowed to the plaintiffs by the referee
for professional aid.
The plaintiffs appear to have pala
the defendant this sum OF $5ooo Voi-
unfairly and without any mistake oil
law or fact. This sum covered not
only the reasonable compensation
which they were authorized to pay tor
legal assistance but also included
compensation for all other services
rendered by the defendant in the set
Element of the estate and IN keeping
the accounts which the plaintiffs were
themselves competent to perform
| without legal assistance. 1t is IN
evidence and uncontradicted that one
or both of the plaintiffs expressed the
oninian at the time that the de-.
| PENDANTS claim was not exorbitant,
and it was paid by them after they
had been informed that the judge OF
| probate had stated in substance mat
! he should not feel warranted IN al
| lowing such a sum for legal SER
| vices
| IT is accordingly the opinion OF the
| court that the certificate must be
| Judgment for the defendant