
    BARTOLET’S APPEAL.
    1. An assignment of error must not embrace more than one item.
    2. An Executor cannot manage decedent’s farm unless specially empowered.
    3. An Executor is not entitled to greater compensation than that allowed in the will except in extraordinary cases
    4. The Court may allow an exception to be filed before an auditor after the time f r filing exceptions in court has expired.
    5. Where an Executor presents an unfounded claim he is chargeable with the hosts incurred thereby.
    6. Where the Executor does not collect a claim he is to be surcharged if it was collectable.
    . Appeal of Abraham Bartolet from the decree of the Orphans’ Court of Schuylkill County, Number 282, January Term, 1878.
    
      ' Daniel Bartolet died testate in November, 1864, leaving' a widow and seventeen children, the youngest of which became ot ■age October 28, 1872. lie directed his real estate should be kept together until his youngest child was twenty-one. He appointed nine of his sons as executors, but- Abraham Bartolet, theappellan^ was the sole acting executor. He allowed his executors $50 each for their services, who were empowered to rent his farm in case the widow did not occupy it. During the last year of youngest ■child’s minority the executor took charge of the tarm claiming that he could get no tenant. It was alleged on the other side that hie did not try to get one. He claimed credit- for $113.95 for putting in crops and keeping it in repairs, and proved that, it brought from $200 to $300 more because the crops were in the ground. 'The executor, as one of the heirs, instituted the proceedings in ■partition in February 1873, and on June 16. 1873, the farm was ¡allotted to one of the heirs. The executor claimed credit in the third and fourth accounts for $150 commissions, having already received $511 in the first two accounts.
    Daniel Bartolet, one of the heirs, filed exceptions to the allowlowanee of the above $113.95 and the commissions and after the ¡account was referred to an auditor and the time for filing exception in court had expired filed an additional exception before the -auditor that the executor should be surcharged with the amount •of a judgment against Elias Bartolet, one of the heirs, which he failed to collect.
    The auditor sustained the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th, exceptions •which were to the allowance of different amounts for labor, material, and repairs,.all governed by the same principle. The auditor held that he was not entitled to commissions having already received more than the will allowed. The auditor surcharged the ■executor with the amount of the judgment against Elias Bartolet under the authority or Levering’s Estate, 6 W. 46, Johnson’s Estate, 9 W. & 8. 107. Charlton’s Appeal, 10 Casey 473. The auditor put upon the executor the costs of witnesses who were called in support of the executor’s claim for the aforesaid $113.95 which the auditor did not allow. Daniel Bartolet excepted to the report but the Court below overruled the exceptions. He then appealed to the Supreme Court. " The first specification of error was •“The Court erred in overruling the first exception of accountant to the confirmation of the auditor’s report, and in confirming the same, which exception is viz.: First. The auditor erred in not allowing the]several credits claimed in said account as designated in exceptions number two, three, four and five, and in allowing said exceptions and surcharging said accountant with $113.95.” The second specification of error assigned was the executor should been allowed commissions claimed. The third specification of error was that the Court erred in allowing the exception to be filed before the auditor after the time allowed for filing exceptions in court had elapsed. The fourth error-was in imposing the costs on the executor.
    
      James Ryon, Esq., for appellant
    argued that the items for which credit was claimed were for improvement ot the real estate and actually caused it to bring a greater price. Second, that the executor was entitled to the credit for $150 for three years’ services attending the -estate, managing the farm and collecting $2,000 in small payments as rent trom various pieces of real estate. Further, that the will did not intend to fix the amount of all the compensations the executors were to receive-, but that $50 specified was additional to their compensation and commissions being entirely inadequate for nearly ten years’ services. The Court will give greater compensation if the amount fixed in the will is inadequate. Shippen vs. Burd, 6 Wright 466. Beddle’s Appeal, 2 Norris 340. Price’s Appeal, 3 W. N. C. 320. Brightly’s Digest, Vol. 2, page 2311.
    That the 66th rule of court requires that accounts shall be confirmed absolutely unless exceptions are filed • within a certain time, and the practice is that whatever is not excepted to in the specified-time, is confirmed. Courts are bound by their own rules. Alexander vs. Alexander, 5 Barr, 279. Green vs. Hallowell, 9 Barr 53. Ankrim vs. Sturgess, 9 Barr 275. The Court below will be reversed for an obvious mistake of its own rules. Dailey vs. Green, 3 H. 118. Elmaker vs. Franklin Ins. Co., 5 Barr 149. Whitehall Township, 11 Wright 156. The confirmation of an executor’s partial account is a definitive decree and conclusive as to matters embraced in it. Rhoads’ Appeal 39 Pa. St. 186. To surcharge the executor want of diligence must be affirmatively shown. Ritter’s Estate, 11 Phila. 12. And it was not shown. The heirs do not want it collected by execution. Besides as long as the executor manages the estate in accordance with the wishes of the testator they are not responsible for losses to the legatees, though the rule is otherwise as to creditors. McNair’s Appeal, 4 Rawle 148. Bruner’s Appeal, 7 Sm. 53. The executor acted in good faith and should not have been surcharged with the costs.
    
      John W. Roseberry, Esq., contra.
    
    The executor had no right to farm the estate himself without consulting the heirs and could not charge lor sowing crops, &c., besides, this work was done after the appraisement in partition when the estate had nothing more to do with it. Second. The filth item of the will provides : “I ordain and appoint----, as my executors of this my last will and testament, and for their services as executors, each and every one of them as above named shall be allowed fifty dollars,” &c. The appellant having already received $511 as commission is not entitled to anything more. Third. The account had not been confirmed absolutely because exceptions had been filed and an auditor appointed, and therefore the exception was in time. The executor was rightly surcharged urder the authorities cited by the auditor. Fourth.. The executor has not acted in good faith and the costs were rightly put upon him.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court below on March 29, 1880, in the following opinion;

Per Curiam.

None of the errors assigned are sustained. The appellant accepted the office of executor under a will limiting the compensation he was to receive for his services as such, and it would to be a case of an extraordinary character which would induce a court to allow more. The first assignment which complains that the Court allowed four distinct exceptions to the account is contrary to Rule XXII. It is true that these exceptions all related to matters depending upon the same principle, and might have been included in one assignment; which should have shown in its face upon what ground it rested. If, however, it had been properly assigned it would not have availed the appellant. He had no right to farm the land himself. The Court had a right to allow the exceptions filed before the auditor. It was equivalent to a special permission to file the exceptions ■ nunc pro tunc. The rule on the subject is a wise one, but the Court below has the necessary power to prevent it from working injustice. Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellant.  