
    Brubaker’s Appeal. [Bard’s Estate.]
    A testator by his will created a trust for accumulation as follows: “ I give to my executors, in trust for the use of my daughter and her issue, the sum of $4000, the interest of which at five per cent, shall be annually added to the principal so long as her present husband shall live, unless her death should sooner occur, but in case she become a widow, then my executors shall annually, on the first of April, pay the interest of the preceding year to her, and, at her death, if she leaves issue or the descendants of such, the principal sum, with the accumulated interest, shall be paid to such issue or descendants.” At the time of testator’s death in 1865, the daughter was 29 years old. On a rule on the testator’s administrator, in 1888, to pay over the money to the daughter, the court below held that she was entitled to the principal and accumulated interest absolutely, under the Act of April 18,1853, regulating trusts for accumulation. Held, not to be error.
    May 17, 1888.
    Appeal, No. 59 July T. 1888, from a decree of the O. C. Lancaster Co., ordering Boland H. Brubaker, administrator, d. b. n. c. t. a., of Michael Bard, deceased, to pay over a legacy, with the accumulations, to Annie E. Brubaker. Trunkey and Sterrett, JL, absent.
    On Eeb. 15, 1888, Annie E. Brubaker presented a petition to the orphans’ court, the averments and prayers of which are set forth in the following opinion of the court, by Patterson, J.:
    “ The court is of opinion that this proceeding should have come before the court by a bill in equity. An answer to such bill (as it seems the proceeding is not antagonized but admittedly introduced to test the law involved) would have rendered more certain the facts of the case and thus strengthen the. authority of the application of the law submitted. [The petition averred that] Michael Bard, late of Lancaster county, died in the year 1865, having first made his will in writing, which was duly probated, and by which he appointed his wife, Martha, C. S. Hoffman and E. G. Groff his executors ; that said executors all renounced or have been discharged and letters of administration d. b. n. c. t. a. of said testator have been duly granted to Boland H. Brubaker; that the will of said Michael Bard contained, inter alia, the following, to wit:
    "'7th. I give to my executors in trust for the use of my daughter Annie, and her issue, the sum of four thousand dollars, the interest of which at five per cent, shall be annually added to the principal so long as her present husband shall live, unless her death should sooner occur, but in case she become a widow, then my executors shall annually, on the first of April, pay the interest of the preceding year to her, and at her death, if she leaves issue or the descendants of such, the principal sum with the accumulated .interest shall be paid to such issue or descendants.’
    “ That the said sum of $4,000 came into the hands of the said Boland H. Brubaker, administrator as aforesaid, and the interest thereon has accumulated in his hands until the said bequest, with its accumulated interest, now amounts to the sum of $9,271.62. That she is advised and believes that the said bequest and trust for accumulation is void, and that all the increase on. the said bequest of $4,000.00 belongs to her absolutely, and she is further advised and believes the bequest of the said sum of $4,000.00 for the use of herself and issue created an absolute estate in her, in the said sum of $4,000.00.
    
      “ She therefore prays the court to order and decree that the said administrator d. b. n. c. t. a. as aforesaid shall pay over to her the said sum of $9,271.62, being the said bequest of $4,000.00 with its accumulations as aforesaid.
    “ The foregoing facts are not questioned or disputed. Besides it is admitted that Annie E. Brubaker, the cestui que trust, was born May 22d, 1836, and the testator Michael Bard died in 1865, which would show her to have been some eight years over her minority at the happening of that event, and that more than twenty-one years have elapsed since the said testator’s death, and the Act of April 18, 1853, regulating trusts for accumulation, makes it clear that this trust accumulation can only be supported or extended to minors. "Washington’s Est., 75 Pa. 102. There are no limitations over in the bequest to Annie E. Brubaker that are inconsistent with a fee simple, as it seems to us, if it was a devise, nor the absolute title, when a bequest of personal property, as in the present case. The will of Michael Bard gives to Annie E. Brubaker, his daughter, the petitioner, an absolute title to the four thousand dollars and the accumulations, as stated in the petition. We are of the opinion that this disposition of the case before us will be found to be sustained by a long list of authorities, among which are the following: Williams and Wife v. Leech et al., 28 Pa. 89; Potts’s Ap., 30 Pa. 168; Smith’s Ap., 23 Pa. 9; Ralston v. Waln et al., 44 Pa. 279; Kay v. Scates, 37 Pa. 31.
    [“And now, this 26th day of April, 1888, it is ordered and decreed that Roland H. Brubaker, administrator d. b, n. c. t. a., file his account in the proper court of the alleged trust property in his hands; and shall pay over to Annie E. Brubaker, the petitioner, the said sum of $9,271.62, being the said bequest of four thousand dollars, with its accumulations. And it is further ordered that the costs in this case be paid out of the fund in the hands of said Roland H. Brubaker as trustee.]
    
      The assignment of error specified the decree of the court, quoting it.
    
      Eugene G. Smith, for appellant.
    -Roland H. Brubaker, the appellant, is the husband of Annie E. Brubaker, the appellee. There is nothing in conflict between them. The counsel for both agree as to the law and the facts. All the children of Michael Bard, the testator, brothers and sisters of the appellee, are living, of age, had notice of this case, and interpose no objection. The only object of this proceeding is to protect appellant.
    
      Geo. Nauman for appellee.
    The authorities cited by the court below amply sustain the decree.
    With regard to the intimation that a bill in equity should have been filed: In Washington’s Est., 75 Pa. 102, where the cáse was very similar to the present one, the proceeding was by petition in the orphans’ court, and in Bush’s Est., 33 Pa. 85, in which case the court ordered the payment of a legacy on the ground that there was an absolute estate in the legatee, and that there was no subsisting trust, a petition in the orphans’ court was held to be the appropriate remedy.
    Oct. 1, 1888.
   Per Curiam,

The opinion of the learned judge of the court below so well disposes of the questions arising in this case that we deem it unnecessary to add anything thereto.

Decree affirmed at costs of appellant.  