
    In the matter of Livingston, a lunatic.
    
      The provision of the revised statutes allowing commissions to executors and administrators, (2 R. S. 93, § 58,) furnishes the measure of compensation for the committee of the person and estate of a lunatic ; and the court of chancery is not authorized to allow any greater or different compensation.
    On appeal from the court of chanceiy. Kortright, the surviving committee of the person and estate of his mother Mrs. Livingston, a lunatic, applied to the court below on petition for certain directions relating to the management of the estate, and for an allowance by way of salary for his services. It was shown that the whole amount of the estate in his hands was about $500,000, and the annual income about $18,000, and that the management of the estate required him to keep an office and employ a clerk, and engrossed the greater part of his time. The highest amount to which he would be entitled for commissions in any one year, according to the allowance to executors and administrators, (2 R. S. 93, § 58,) would be only $623, and the aggregate of such allowances since his appointment, being the period of twelve years, would not exceed $3,570. Certain of the persons presumptively entitled to the succession upon the death of Mrs. L. had signed a stipulation consenting to an allowance of $1,000 per annum, but some of the individuals thus situated were minors who could not consent. The chancellor being of opinion that the court was not authorized to allow a greater compensation than that fixed by the revised statutes for executors and administrators, denied that part of the application. For the opinion of the chancellor see 9 Paige, 440. The petitioner appealed to this court.
    The cause was submitted on written arguments.
   Senators Lott and Porter

delivered written opinions in favor of affirming the order of the chancellor. In addition to the authorities referred to in the opinion of the chancellor, they cited and commented upon the following: Bointhon v. Hockmore, (1 Vern. 316;) Scattergood v. Harrison, (Moseley's R. 128;) Robinson v. Pett, (3 P. Wms. 249;) In Re Ormsby, (1 Ball & Bea. 189;) Brocksopp v. Barnes, (5 Madd. 90.)

Senators Folsom and Putnam delivered written opinions in favor of reversing the order appealed from. .

On the question being put, “ Shall this, decree be reversed 1” the members of the court voted as follows :

For reversal: Senators Emmons, Folsom, Jones and Putnam—4.

For affirmance; The President, Mr. Justice Jewett, and Senators Backus, Barlow, Bockee, Deyo, Hand, Johnson Lott, Porter, Scovil, Smith and Talcott—13.

Order affirmed.  