
    (94 South. 350)
    JONES et al. v. POLK.
    (3 Div. 559.)
    (Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Nov. 2, 1922.)
    Executors and administrators <&wkey;510(4)— Allowance of item in final settlement not reviewed, in absence of objection to allowance at rendition of decree.
    Allowance of item of administrator’s account on the final settlement thereof will not be reviewed on appeal, where no objection was made or exception taken to the allowance of the item at the time of the rendition of the decree.
    Appeal from Probate Court, Escambia County; M. R. MeLellan, Judge.
    Contest of final settlement by Dora Jones and others against R. L. Polk, as administrator , of the estate of William Polk, deceased. Erom a decree allowing the account, contestants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Leon G. Brooks, of Brewton, for appellants.
    When compensation is claimed by a child for services rendered to his parent, the presumption is that the services were gratuitous. 204 Ala. 328, 85 South. 531; 152 Ala.' 594, 44 South. 863; 147 Ala. 522, 41 South. 133; 28 R. C. L. 689.
    Ed. Leigh McMillan, of Brewton, and Smiths, Young, Leigh & Johnston, of Mobile, for appellee.
    The Supreme Court will not review the correctness of a decree of the probate court or an accounting by an administrator as to the allowance of credits, when no exceptions wore taken or reserved. 202 Ala. 310, 80 South. 392; 202 Ala. 457, 80 South. 841; 151 Ala* 287, 44 South. 211; Code 1907, § 2863.
   SOMERVILLE, J.

The appeal is from a decree of the probate court of Escambia county on the final settlement of an administration. The court allowed a claim in favor of the administrator for services rendered to his intestate during his lifetime, and this is the only part of the decree sought to be reviewed and corrected by this appeal.

The record wholly fails to show that any objection was made or exception taken to the allowance of this item of the account at the time of the rendition of the decree. Under the settled rule of this court we cannot, in that state of the record, review the matter complained of. Russell v. McPherson, 202 Ala. 310, 80 South. 392; Morris v. Morris, 202 Ala. 457, 80 South. 841.

The record presenting no other question, the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.  