Court Opinion

ID: 6950411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 01:30:55.305957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:08:03.598509
License: Public Domain

Caton, C. J. The only question in this case is, whether an attorney of this court, who is an administrator, is entitled to an allowance against the estate, for professional services, in cases which he prosecutes or defends as such administrator. The authorities are uniform that this should not he allowed, and every principle of sound policy forbids it. The law cannot permit the idea that a person can take the office of executor or. administrator as a business, or as a means of making money. It must ever associate with that place, to a certain extent, the idea of benevolence or philanthropy. We must ever assume that whoever takes such a position is actuated by an impulse of generosity and a desire to do good to others, rather than to make it a source of profit to himself. He must not be expected to suffer loss in the discharge of his duties, hence he must be allowed his necessary disbursements, and a reasonable compensation for the time and trouble bestowed upon the business of the estate. But beyond this the court should never go. If he chooses to exercise his professional skill as a lawyer in the business of the estate, that must be considered a gratuity. To allow him to become his own client and charge for professional services in his own cause, although in a representative or trust capacity, would be holding out inducements for professional men to seek such representative places to increase their professional business, which would lead to most pernicious results. This is forbidden by every sound principle of professional morality as well as by the policy of the law. We think the decision of the court below was proper, and it must be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.