
    Connelly’s Estate.
    
      Decedents’ estates — Occupation of real estate by widow — Children — Tenants in common — Intestate laws.
    
    Under the intestate laws of Pennsylvania a widow is not a tenant in common with the heirs of land of which her husband died seized. If she occupies the real estate, her occupancy of the premises creates no obligation to account to the heirs of the husband for the rental value thereof; and this is especially true where the heirs are minor children of the husband, and live with the widow on the premises, and were educated, fed and maintained by her for several years.
    Argued Oct. 10,1918.
    Appeal, No. 178, Oct. T., 1918, by Patrick J. Anderson, from order of O. O. Beaver Co., Dec. T., 1917, No. 27, dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report in Estate of Mary J. Connelly.
    Before Stewart, Moschzisker, Frazer, Simpson and Fox, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Exceptions to report of John A. Elliott, Esq., auditor.
    The auditor found that John J. Connelly died on July 3,1913, intestate, leaving to survive Mm his widow, Mary J. Connelly, and two sons by a former wife, aged respectively eleven and thirteen years. He owned a hotel in which the widow and the two sons lived until the widow’s death on October 8, 1916. During this time the widow conducted the hotel, and supported, maintained and fed the two sons. The guardian of the sons claimed $20,800 for the widow.’s use of the hotel. The auditor disallowed the claim. On exceptions Baldwin, P. J., filed the following opinion:
    We have carefully examined the auditor’s findings and conclusions in this case and are of the opinion that the auditor was right in refusing the claim presented by Patrick J. Anderson, guardian of Thomas P. and John F. Connelly.
    As pointed out by the auditor, the weight of authority is that under the intestate laws of Pennsylvania the widow is not a tenant in common with the heirs. Therefore, her occupancy of the premises in question created no obligation to account to the heirs of the husband for the rental value thereof. Besides, the heirs occupied the premises jointly with her. They were fed, clothed and educated out of the profits of the business which the decedent conducted in the premises. The master’s findings show that the decedent expended in theii^ maintenance and education a sum equal to or in excess of their share of a fair compensation for the use- of the premises or the fair rental value thereof.
    January 4,1919:
    We are unable to see how the claim can be sustained, either in whole or in part, and the exceptions will accordingly be dismissed.
    
      Errors assigned were in dismissing exceptions to the auditor’s report.
    
      Lawrence M. Sebring, with him George Wilson, for appellant.
    
      E. C. Higbee, of Sterling, Higbee & Matthews, with him S. R. Goldsmith, Arthur McKeen, and W. D. Craig, for appellees.
   Per Curiam,

The decree is affirmed on the opinion of the learned president judge.  