Case Name: Allen Vance & Wife, et al. v. Charles F. Gary, Adm'r
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1838-12
Citations: 1 Rice Eq. 2
Docket Number: 
Parties: Allen Vance & Wife, et al. v. Charles F. Gary, Adm’r.
Judges: David Johnson,
Reporter: South Carolina Equity Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 2–3

Head Matter:
Allen Vance & Wife, et al. v. Charles F. Gary, Adm’r.
Where upon the sale of .the effects of an intestate, the administrator purchased property to the amount of three thousand four hundred dollars. Held, that in the adjustment of his accounts before the commissioner, he was entitled to commissions upon the same.
An administrator is entitled to commissions upon monies paid hy him in the administration of the estate, though paid after the bill for an account was filed and under the decree of the court.
Before HARPER, Chancellor, at Laurens, June Term, 1838.
The bill in this case was filed by complainants, as the legal representatives of Martin Gary, against the defendant as his administrator, for an account of the estate of his intestate. At the sale by defendant, as administrator, he purchased property to the value of $3,400 — and the commissioner in adjusting the accounts, allowed defendant 2^ per cent, commissions for paying out the amount of his purchase, but refused to allow him commissions for receiving the same. The commissioner allowed commissions to defendant for money paid after bill filed and collected under a decree of this court.
To the commissioners report, exceptions were filed both by complainant and defendant, two only of which are necessary to be brought to the view of the court. To wit: By the complainant, “ Because the commissioner allowed the defendant commissions for money collected from him after bill filed and under the decree of the court. And by the defendant, “Because the commissioner did not allow defendant commissions on $3,400, for receiving the same, being the amount purchased by him at his own sale.
The presiding chancellor overruled complainants exception and sustained the defendant’s; and from this part of the decree, complainants appealed and moved to reverse the same upon the ground, that the chancellor should have sustained complainants exception, and overruled the exception of defendant.
Young, for complainants.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The court concur in the chancellor's decree, and the same is affirmed.
David Johnson,
Benjamin F. Dunkin,
Job Johnston.