In re the Estate of Young

30 P. 643, 4 Wash. 534, 1892 Wash. LEXIS 262
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 7, 1892
DocketNo. 468
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 30 P. 643 (In re the Estate of Young) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re the Estate of Young, 30 P. 643, 4 Wash. 534, 1892 Wash. LEXIS 262 (Wash. 1892).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Stiles, J. —

The appellant, as administrator of the estate of Young, deceased, collected $4,300 as damages from the Northern Pacific Railroad Company for causing the death of his decedent. In presenting his final account he claimed nothing as commission, but asked to be allowed $1,333.33 for money paid to himself as attorney for the heir in prosecuting and collecting the claim against the railroad company. The court disallowed the demand, but allowed the usual commissions.

[535]*535The appellant made the collection and brought it into the estate by his report. We must, therefore, assume it to have been within the line of his duty to do all he did. The law fixes his fees for doing his duty, without anticipation that he will make agreements with heirs for additional compensation, as he claims to have done in this case. Such agreements ought certainly to be so far void that a court of probate would refuse to recognize them in the settlement of an administrator’s accounts. When a lawyer becomes a voluntary administrator, he takes the office cum, mere, and although he exercise professional skill in conducting the estate, he does not thereby entitle himself to additional compensation. Taylor v. Wright, 98 Ind. 121, Hough v. Harvey, 71 Ill. 72.

We concur in the action of the court below, and the order appealed from is therefore affirmed.

Anders, C. J., and Hoyt, Scott and Dunbar, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Seibert v. McClure
12 Wash. 2d 643 (Washington Supreme Court, 1942)
In Re Belknap's Estate
123 P.2d 358 (Washington Supreme Court, 1942)
Jones v. Peabody
45 P.2d 915 (Washington Supreme Court, 1935)
Needham v. Needham
200 P. 346 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1921)
Noble v. Whitten
80 P. 451 (Washington Supreme Court, 1905)
In re the Guardianship of Humeku
15 Haw. 394 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1904)
Estate of Shillaber
1 Coffey 101 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 P. 643, 4 Wash. 534, 1892 Wash. LEXIS 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-young-wash-1892.