
    Vázquez v. Sosa.
    Appeal from the District Court of San Juan.
    No. 517.
    Decided June 8, 1910.
    Accounts of a Judicial Administrator — Objection Thereto. — When an administrator charges a certain sum as paid by him for the care and pasture of cattle, no objection thereto can be raised, unless it be shown that the charge was unreasonable.
    Id. — Sworn Account of a Judicial Administrator. — When an administrator swears that certain yokes of oxen were not set to work and his account therefor is'objected to, it is necessary to show that such oxen could or should have been used.
    Id. — Fees of the Administrator's Attorney. — In this case it was held that the fees of the administrator's attorney were not unreasonable, although part of his work was in the interest of minors.
    Id. — Pasture of Part of the Cattle of the Estate on Lands Belonging to the Administrator. — Although an administrator should not pasture cattle ■of the estate on lands belonging to himself, nothing to the contrary appearing from the record, it is to be presumed that this was done in the interest of the estate, especially when the court had approved the accounts, and refused to reconsider its action thereon.
    Tbe facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Mr. José Martínez Dávila for appellant.
    
      Tlie respondent did not appear.
   MR. Justice Wole

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from two orders, one approving the account of a temporary administrator, and the second refusing to reconsider the previous order.

With respect to the first order we are satisfied that the decision of the court below was correct on all the objections raised at the time of such order by the appellant.

With respect to the first objection, in regard to the price paid by the administrator for pasture of cattle,' the court had before it the sworn account of the administrator that he had paid two dollars for each head of cattle and there was no proof or indication in the record of the unreasonableness of the charge in the locality where they were pastured.

The same reasoning applies to the objection that some yokes of oxen were not set to work. The administrator swore that they were not used, and in the absence of proof that they could or should have been used, the account must stand.

With respect to the fees of the attorney, we think all his work was in the interest of the estate and the amount of $300 allowed him not unreasonable, even if part of his work was in the interest of minors in a collateral suit.

We come to the motion for reconsideration. It was probably bad practice for the administrator to make himself allowances for the pasture of part of the cattle, without making a prior showing to the court of the necessity or -advantage of so doing. But we are not satisfied from the record that such pasturing was not in the interest of the estate and we think it was an unreasonable objection to raise this question after the account had been approved.

The orders appealed from must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Chief Justice Hernández and Justices MacLeary and del Toro concurred.

Mr. Justice Figueras did not sit at the hearing of this case.  