Estate of Hain

31 A. 337, 167 Pa. 55, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 861

• Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: March 18, 1895
• Docket: Appeal, No. 280
• Status: Published

Opinion

Per Curiam,

It is not denied that the court below could have authorized the expenditures complained of if the accountant had made application at the proper time. What it had the power to authorize, if done without permission it may ratify and approve. Whether this power should be exercised in any given case is not a question to be settled by the application of some general rule of law, but by the exercise of a sound judicial discretion in view of all the surrounding circumstances. Fortunately the courts have the power to do in such cases what ought in fairness and good conscience to be done. The court below seems to have exercised this power in the case now before us in a discreet and equitable manner, and we are not willing to disturb the conclusion reached. The accountant may not have been as economical of his expenditures in the care of the lunatic as he might have been, but it is clear that he was upright in the discharge of his trust, and that whatever unnecessary expenditures he made were in the interest of the personal comfort of his unfortunate ward.

The order appealed from is affirmed, the costs of this appeal to be paid by the appellant.