
    In the Matter of the judicial settlement, etc., of Gilbert R. Sprague et al., Adm’rs.
    
    
      (Court of Appeals,
    
    
      Filed February 6, 1891.)
    
    Appeal—Fnromes op-pact—Code Civ. Pro., § 2545.
    Where the surrogate, in disallowing a claim upon an accounting, makes, no findings as required by § 2545 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the record does not contain any exceptions to the findings or to the decision of the surrogate, the general term has no jurisdiction on the appeal to it to review the surrogate’s decision upon the facts; neither has this court.
    Appeal .from judgment of the supreme court, general term, second department, affirming decree of surrogate rejecting and disallowing claim made by Gilbert R. Sprague for compensation for services alleged to have been performed for decedent in his lifetime.
    
      Geo. A. Anderson, for app’lt; Abram, J. Miller and Hackett & Williams, for resp’ts.
    
      
       Affirming 8 N. Y. State Rep., 902.
    
   Earl, J.

Gilbert B. Sprague and Ferris J. Sprague were administrators of their father’s estate and they presented their ac■counts to the surrogate of Putnam county for final settlement. Upon such accounting Gilbert B. Sprague presented for settlement and allowance an account in his own favor against the intestate for about $10,000. This account was contested and after hearing the evidence it was disallowed by the surrogate. A decree was then entered settling the accounts of the administrators but disallowing the claim of Gilbert B. Sprague. Upon appeal by Gilbert B. Sprague to the general term the decision of the surrogate as to this claim was affirmed and then he appealed here.

The surrogate did not make any findings as required by § 2545 of the Code and the record does not contain any exceptions to the findings or to the decision of the surrogate. Therefore the general term did not have j urisdiction on the appeal to it to review the surrogate’s decision upon the facts, and neither has this court. If the appellant desired to bring to the general term or to this court questions of fact or of law involved in the accounting, and to review the decisions of the surrogate in reference thereto, he should have procured findings of fact and of law and should have made proper exceptions thereto. Hewlett v. Elmer, 103 N. Y., 156, 164; 3 N. Y. State Rep., 1; Matter of the judicial settlement of Kellogg, 104 N. Y, 648; 5 N. Y. State Rep., 668; Angevine v. Jackson, 103 N. Y., 470; 3 N. Y. State Rep., 643.

Our attention is called to but a single ruling upon evidence upon the hearing before the surrogate to which objection was made, and that ruling is so clearly right that it is not deserving of particular notice here.

Therefore, as we have no jurisdiction to inquire into the merits of this controversy over the claim presented by Gilbert B. Sprague, the j udgment below should be affirmed, with costs against the appellant personally.

All concur.  