
    In the Matter of the Final Judicial Settlement of the Account of Benjamin Laramie, Administrator, etc.
    
      Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed June 28, 1889.)
    
    1. Executors and administrators—Pinal settlement—What sums ALLOWED.
    Where, on the final settlement of an administrator’s account, the evidence shows that the sum that the administrator paid his attorney for obtaining the money which constitutes all the estate, is a reasonable one, it should be allowed him.
    
      2 Same—Surrogate—Power to determine who are proper distributees.
    The power of the surrogate’s court on a final settlement of an administrator’s account to determine who are the proper distributees, is inherent to the power to settle the account and distribute the estate.
    3. Same—When not personally chargeable with costs.
    Where there is no proof showing bad faith or unreasonable contest upon the part of an administrator, but the contest was taken up by a distributee against his illegitimate brothers and sisters, costs will not be charged against the administrator personally.
    Appeal by Benjamin Laramie, administrator, etc., from a decree settling his accounts, and charging him personally with costs.
    
      W. Charles B. Thornton, for app’lt; Francis Spier, Jr., for Mr. 0. Ball and Rufus B. Laramie, resp’ts.
   Barnard, P. J.

The case shows that Benjamin Laramie was appointed by the surrogate of Kings county administrator of the estate of Harriet M. A. Laramie, his wife. The administrator petitioned for a judicial settlement of his account.

By his petition the administrator stated that certain infants were among those interested in the estate.

These infants were cited to appear at the accounting and subsequently to the return of the citation the surrogate appointed a special guardian for them, to take care of their interests, on the final settlement. Objection were taken to the account and the proceedings were referred to John A. Kemble, referee, to hear and determine all matters arising upon the settlement of the account. Among the items contested was a payment of $250 by the administrator to' his attorney. The evidence shows that the administrator agreed, with his attorney, to pay $250 for obtaining the money from England, which constituted all the estate.

It was a legacy due the deceased and amounted to $638.99, and was from the estate of Elizabeth Weeks. The evidence shows that $250 was a reasonable charge for the work done, and that sum should have been allowed by the referee.

The only other question litigated on the trial was whether the young children were distributees.

Laramie was married to the deceased, and by her he had children, one of whom, Rufus B. Laramie, alone survives. In 1861, Benjamin Laramie enlisted first in the army and then in the navy. On his return he found his wife and had one young child by him, these disputed children.

The referee has found them illegitimate. The objection is taken that the legitimacy of the children exceeds the power of the surrogate’s court.

The point does not seem to be well-founded. The power to determine who are the proper distributees is inherent to the power to settle and account and distribute the estate. It is, also, held to exist by adjudged cases. Riggs v. Cragg, 89 N. Y., 479; Purdy v. Hayt, 92 id., 446; Matter of Verplanck, 91 id., 439.

There is nothing in the evidence which shows-that the costs of the special guardian or of the attorney for the legitimate child should be charged against the husband’s share, as he was left to pay his own costs.

The special guardian, who was as "well the special guardian of the legitimate child, as of the illegitimate children, should equally be paid out of the share of the legitimate child. The contest was between these children and there is no proof showing bad faith or unreasonable contest upon the part of the husband of the deceased. He presented the question to the surrogate’s court and that is all.

The contest was taken up by the child against his illegitimate brothers and sisters. The husband did nothing but call for the payment of the costs of this contest.

Decree modified in accordance with these views and no costs allowed to either party, on this appeal.

All concur.  