Siglin's Estate

20 Pa. D. & C. 105, 1933 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 104
CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Union County
DecidedSeptember 2, 1933
Docketno. 2
StatusPublished

This text of 20 Pa. D. & C. 105 (Siglin's Estate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Union County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Siglin's Estate, 20 Pa. D. & C. 105, 1933 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 104 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1933).

Opinion

Lesher, P. J.,

Charles E. Si'glin served in the United States Army in the World War for a period of a year. After his return from service in the army, he was duly adjudged a lunatic by the Court of Common Pleas of Union County. His uncle, Charles F. Roth, was appointed committee of his estate on February 8, 1919, and acted as such until January 19, 1929, when he was discharged by the court, and Lewisburg Trust & Safe Deposit Company, of Lewisburg, Penna., was substituted in his place.

Charles F. Roth, as committee, filed several accounts in this court, which discharged him and appointed an auditor to pass upon his claim for the support and maintenance of his ward.

The auditor filed his report and the Veterans’ Bureau took an appeal from the entire proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania set aside all the [106]*106accounts filed by Roth, and the appointment of Lewisburg Trust & Safe Deposit Company, the new committee of the lunatic’s estate, and directed Roth to file a final account: Siglin’s Estate, 307 Pa. 540. The Supreme Court made the following order:

“The order of the court below is reversed, the appointment of the new committee of the estate of Charles E. Siglin, a lunatic, and all proceedings subsequent thereto, are set aside; the appellee, Charles F. Roth, is directed to file, within such a reasonable time as the court below shall allow, a full and complete account of his management of the property of the lunatic, including all the items embraced in any preceding settlement, and thereafter such further proceedings shall be had as are according to law and not inconsistent with this opinion.”

The attorney for Roth presented a motion to this court for the appointment of an auditor to pass upon his client’s claim for support and maintenance of his ward. At the time this motion was presented, the court inquired of counsel whether or not Mr. Roth had filed his account as committee, to which counsel replied that he had, and that notice of the presentation of the motion for appointment of an auditor had been given the attorney for the Veterans’ Bureau, who had agreed thereto. All the former proceedings had been before a predecessor to the present incumbent on the bench.

The court had in mind the order of the Supreme Court, and felt that no auditor should be appointed until a final account had been filed by Mr. Roth in compliance with that decree.

Andrew A. Leiser, Esq., was appointed auditor, and filed his report, to which exceptions were taken; and the matter is now before the court for disposition. When the court came to dispose of the matter and secured the papers, it was very much surprised to find that Mr. Roth had not filed a final account in accordance with the order of the Supreme Court. I might also state that the attorney for the Veterans’ Bureau likewise failed to call the court’s attention to the fact that no final account had been filed.

The court is of the opinion that this order of the Supreme Court should have been complied with before any other proceedings were instituted or had in this matter, and would have so ordered had it understood that this had not been done. The court now directs that Charles F. Roth file a final account as committee of the said Charles E. Siglin in accordance with the said order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

As we have stated heretofore, the court would not have appointed an auditor at that time, that is, before Roth filed his final account, had it understood that he had not done so.

However, since the question of the amount that Roth is entitled to receive for the support and maintenance of his ward has been in controversy over a period of several years, the court will consider the auditor’s report and pass upon the amount it feels Mr. Roth is entitled to receive, and for which he shall claim credit in his final account for maintenance and support of his said ward, so that this controversy may be at an end.

Because the lunatic was a veteran of the World War, regular payments were made to his committee for the account of the lunatic, by the United States Veterans’ Bureau, amounting to $157.50 per month, $57.50 from the war risk insurance, and $100 from the United States Veterans’ Bureau.

Part of the time, this lunatic was in the State Hospital for the Insane at Danville, Penna., part of the time he was in the Veterans’ Hospital at Perry Point, Md., and part of the time he was furnished board and maintenance at the home of his committee, Charles F. Roth, in Lewisburg, Penna. The lunatic’s [107]*107father died when he was a small child, and he was practically raised in the home of his uncle, Charles P. Roth. The auditor, in his report, finds that a reasonable sum for support and maintenance which should be allowed Roth is $65 per month. Por this the lunatic received a room, board, laundry, care, and attention.

The auditor also found that Roth had furnished support and maintenance for his ward for a period of 70 months at the rate of $65 per month, and made an award of $4,550. He also made two other allowances, one for $140 for payment for medical attention, for which credit had not been taken, and the other for cash and other expenditures of $419.40, for which no credit was taken.

The Veterans’ Bureau, by its attorney, John M. Dervin, filed 13 exceptions to the auditor’s report, which we will take up in the order in which they appear.

The first exception is to the effect that the appointment of the auditor was irregular. This exception, the court feels, is without merit. The powers of the court to appoint auditors are very broad, and the power of selection is a judicial act.

Auditors are called in by the court to hear matters of detail and to inform the conscience of the court of facts which it must know before a decree or judgment can be pronounced: Miller’s Appeals, 30 Pa. 478, 490. This exception also fails to specify or apprise the court wherein the appointment is illegal. This exception must be dismissed. I might also add that counsel for the Veterans’ Bureau, at the time of the audit, agreed that the matter should proceed before the auditor.

The second exception is to the effect that the auditor’s charge of $550 is not chargeable to the estate. The question of the amount which the committee can charge has been in controversy and has been in dispute by the Veterans’ Bureau .for several years, and the court feels that the matter should be judicially determined, and the question put at rest. The court feels that this item is legally chargeable against the estate of the lunatic, and this exception is likewise dismissed.

The third exception is to the effect that the fee of the auditor is excessive. As to this exception, the court is without information as to just how much time the auditor may have spent on his report. If the exceptant felt that the auditor’s fee was excessive, it was his duty to inform the court to what extent it was excessive, and also the amount of work the auditor performed in this matter, so that the court could arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not the charge was excessive. However, the court being without such information, excepting the bald statement in the exception that it was excessive, this exception must be dismissed.

The fourth exception is without merit and must be dismissed, for the reason that it fails to point out or set forth wherein the findings of the auditor from the testimony are improper.

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

Related

Siglin's Estate
161 A. 530 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1932)
In re Citizens Trust Co.
134 Misc. 683 (New York Supreme Court, 1929)
Miller's Appeals
30 Pa. 478 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1858)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 Pa. D. & C. 105, 1933 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siglins-estate-pactcomplunion-1933.