
    Mace’s Estate.
    
      Auditor — Auditor’s findings of fact — Appeals—Review.
    An auditor’s findings of fact as to the correctness of a trustee’s accounts, and claims to surcharge, approved by the court below, will not be reversed by the appellate court in the absence of manifest error.
    Argued Oct. 10, 1905.
    Appeal, No. 117, Oct. T., 1905, by Safe Deposit & Trust Company, Trustee et al., from decree of O. C. Westmoreland Co., Nov. T., 1899, No. 43, dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report in Estate of Laura C. Mace, deceased.
    Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Exceptions to report of Edward B. McCormick, Esq., auditor.
    Steel, P. J., filed the following opinion:
    A careful examination of the testimony, exceptions, papers and repórt in the case convinces us that all the interest that could fairly have accrued on the money and securities in the. hands of the accountant has been charged against him, and that the proper amount of premium on the bonds sold has been accounted for. There is no proof that he improperly received anything for transferring the $10,000 of four per cent government bonds for the longer term five per cent school bonds. And there can be no doubt but that the trade was of advantage to the estate both in the amount of interest to be received and the ultimate value of the bond. The contestants had their day in court and as the time for the review of the original account had expired they were not entitled to have that decree opened.
    And now, to wit: May 6,1905, the exceptions are dismissed and the auditor’s report is confirmed absolutely.
    
      
      Error assigned was the decree of the court.
    
      John E. Kunkle, with him Edward E. Bobbins, for appellants.
    
      James S. Moorhead, with him John B. Head, for appellee.
    October 30, 1905 :
   Pee G ubi am,

The questions of fact as to the correctness of the trustee’s accounts, and the claims to surcharge him were carefully considered in detail by the auditor and his findings have been approved by the court. We have not been shown any valid ground for differing from the conclusions, and there is nothing else in the case. The decree is affirmed on the opinion of the court below.

Decree affirmed at the costs of the appellant.  