
    Daniel Burke, Administrator vs. Alfred H. Terry.
    A claim against an administrator, for services rendered him as such in the settlement of an estate, does not constitute the party rendering [ *415 ] *such services a creditor of the estate, and he has no right of appeal from the settlement of the administrator’s account by the court of probate.
    Where the amount due in such a case is not allowed to the administrator by the court of probate in the settlement of his administration account, such disallowance does not affect the right of the claimant to recover the same of the administrator.
    Writ of error. The judgment below was rendered by the superior court in favor of the defendant, Terry, upon his appeal from a decree of the court of probate for the district of New Haven, allowing and settling the administration account of the plaintiff Burke, as administrator of Cornelius Burke. The reasons of appeal assigned by the appellant in the court below, were, that the probate court had not allowed to the administrator,in his account,, the sum of $200 due to the appellant from the administrator for services rendered by him as an attorney in the settlement of the estate; the administrator having represented to the probate court that nothing was due to the appellant ; and that the sum of $150 was allovred in the administration account as money paid by the administrator to one Hoadley, for legal services, which services the appellant claimed had never been rendered, and that the charge of the same by the administrator against the estate was fraudulent: and the appellant claimed to be interested in the estate as a creditor, by reason of his claim against the administrator for the professional services rendered him as above stated. The superior court found the allegations of the appellant, in his reasons of appeal, to be true, and reversed the decree of the probate court. The administrator thereupon brought the present writ of error.
    Watrous, with whom was Dutton, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      Harrison, with whom was G. R. Ingersoll, for the defendant in error.
   Ellsworth, J.

There is manifest error in this record.

The appellant is not .a creditor of the estate of Cornelius Burke, as is apparent on the face of the reasons assigned by *him why the decree of probate should be [ *416 ] reversed. Whatever claim he may have for services rendered to Daniel Burke, it is against him individually, and not against the estate, as this court recently , decided in the case of Taylor v. Mygatt, 26 Conn., 185.

Mr. Terry has nothing to do with the settlement of the administration account, and hence can not complain of what is done in the premises. For the same reason he is not injured by the charge allowed the administrator in his account for money paid to Hoadley. The allowance of this charge can not possibly be injurious to Mr, Terry, for, as we have said, he is not a creditor of the estate. But if he was remotely interested, and he must be so if at all, the estate is not insolvent, and he therefore is not injured by the allowance. He has a perfect remedy against Daniel Burke, his debtor, and may sue him without delay for whatever is due from him.

There is error in the judgment of the superior court.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Judgment reversed.  