
    BARCLAY’S APPEAL.
    A person, serving in a fiduciary capacity is entitled to a fair compensation for his services, the amouvt of which depends upon the circumstances of each case.
    Where an administrator acts in good faith, costs will not be imposed on him, even though he presents a claim which is not allowed.
    Appeal from the Orphans’ Court of Bedford County: No. 134 January Term, 1883.
    This was an appeal by "W". W. Barclay, administrator of Abram Kerns, deceased, from an order of the Orphans’ Court fixing his compensation as such administrator, &c.'
    The following is an extract taken from the Auditor’s report:
    1. Abram Kerns died on the-day of-, 1837, leaving his last wall and testament in waiting, which was duly proven on the 13th of October, 1838, and recorded in "Will Book No. 3, page 132, and letters testamentary were duly issued to Hon. Job Mann and Naomi Eisher, (being one of the executors and the executrix named in the will.) In this will the testator provided as follows: “After my debts are paid all my estate, real'and personal, (except “my gold watch reserved for my son, McDonald Ridgely,) to be “divided between my good and prudent wife in manner and form “prescribed by the laws of Pennsylvania. I do hereby nominate, “constitute and appoint the Hon. Job Mann and the Hon. Charles “Ogle, Esqs., my- executors, and my wife, Naomi, executrix “of this my last will and testament, my said executors and executrix to be individually and not jointly responsible. I do hereby “authorize and empower the legal representatives of my estate to “sell any part or the whole my estate, terms and time at their “discretion. I jvish a sober and competent person or persons “employed, as occasion may require, to look up and examine my “lands, to ascertain their value and assist my executors to sell “them, no sales should be made without actual knowledge of, and “surveying the respective tracts previous to closing sale.”
    8. In 1870 "W. W. Barclay was employed by Job Mann, executor, and Mrs. Fisher, executrix, to. act as agent for the estate of Abram Kerns, and this agency continued until May, 1873, when they gave him a general- power of attorney to make sales -of the lands in Bedford, Fulton, Huntingdon and Somerset counties, and to make leases and sales of bark, timber, ores, fire-clay, &c. He was to make a report of sales, leases, &c., and after accounting to the executor and executrix for sales or leases made and money-received and paid out for expenses, &c., he was to have a reasonable compensation for his trouble and services. These letters of attorney are recorded in Book A. V., page 416. On the 14th of September, 1870, Job Mann settled with Mr. Barclay and allowed his account of $236.25, which included his claim for $200 for services in examining lands, surveying and ascertaining lines, &e. And on the 15th of November, 1872, he allowed his account of ? 346 for the year 1871, which included $300 for surveying and general attention to Kerns’ lands.
    9. Mr. Barclay has filed two accounts as administrator of this estate. One on the 19th January, 1878, which was confirmed on the 19th of February, 1878, showing total charges of $9,381.93 and total credits, $8,983.54, leaving a balance due the estate of $398.39. In this account he claimed credit and was allowed for his services from 1872 to 1878, $2,166.66, exclusive .of expenses. A second account was filed by Mr. Barclay on the 19th of January, 1882, to which exceptions were filed. In this account the ■charges amounted to $5,476.85, and the credits $2,944.83. In this account Mr. Barclay claims $1,200 for.his services, making his ■iestimate on the basis of 5 per cent, on the amount of charges for sermees as administrator, and the balance for outside and office attentions io the lands. The charges in this last account are made up from $1,123, realized from judgments and contracts obtained prior to Mrs. Fisher’s, death, (the money on the judgments being paid in as rentals) $2,259.36 from Deford & Co. on a single contract, $600 from Fessler on a bark contract and $600 from Moseby on a bark contract, $398.39, a balance on a former account, $93.61, interest on this item and the balance of the amount, $407.49 in small sums for straps, ties, &c.
    10. Due notice was given of the filing of the account in 1878, and it appears from Mr. Fisher’s letters to Mr. Reed, hereto attached, that he had personal notice from Mr. Reed; Misses Ettie and Ida Reamer had legal if not actual notice. But it does not appear that either of the parties interested gave the account a personal examination, or employed counsel to look after it for them.
    11. All parties interested in the estate had full confidence in Mr.' Barclay, and it was because of this confidence and of the fact that for five years he had been acting as agent and attorney-in-fact for the executors and had acquired in this time a comprehensive knowledge of the lands, their location, and their title, and because he knew whether they were valuable for bark and timber or for minerals, that they selected him to administer the affairs of the estate.
    12. The estate of Abram Kerns consisted mainly of wild lands and now comprises about 14,000 acres, made up as follows : 5,181 acres in Bedford county owned by Kerns’ heirs ; one-half of 8,539 acres in Bedford county owned jointly by Kerns’ heirs and the heirs of Samuel Barclay, deceased ; 2,045 acres in Fulton county owned by Kerns’ heirs ; 1,040 acres in Somerset county owned by same, .and one-half of 2,836 acres in Somerset county owned jointly by Kerns and Barclay estates. It does not appear that the title to any of these tracts is in dispute, except the James Chorey, James Carey, the Swann and the Allen. The chestnut oak bark has been sold off of all the lands in Fulton county and it seems the contracts and sales for the bark on these lands were made prior to January 19th, 1878, when Mr. Barclay’s first account was filed, unless it be for part of the bark sold to Moseby and the $7.20 received from J. Freeman for bark in 1880.
    13. Since the filing of the account in 1878, Mr. Barclay has made no sales of real estate, and but three contracts for the sale of bark, which includes the Moseby contract, and several small contracts for the sale of straps, timber and ties.
    14. The lands required a certain amount of extra care and.' attention through the bark season, which was given by Mr. Barclay, but it does not appear that they required any special earn during the balance of the year. His position as administrator, c. t. a., &c., however, required him to watch the interests of the’ estate and to be ready at all times to furnish information tO' parties who might desire to purchase and who wished to know the location and extent of surveys, the quality and quantity of' timber, &c., and this could be done only by showing the drafts or going upon the lands, and in these respects Mr. Barclay was-always ready and willing and fully performed his duty.
    15. He was always present with the surveyors when they were’ running lines and during the past four years was out thirteen-days with Mr. Sams, one day with Mr. Curran and four days with Mr. Ketterman. In addition to this he has been on the lands at different times during this period, to see that no trespassing has-been done. His expenses on these trips were paid out of thfefunds of the estate, as were all his actual expenses relative to-the management of the estate.
    16. During the same four years, Mr. Barclay acted as agent for the Barclay éstate who owned over 5,000 acres jointly with Kerns’ estate and other mountain land, as well as a large body of seated and improved lands, and he was also agent for Scott & Gratz, who owned about 8,000 acres of land in Fulton county. From the Barclay estate he has been getting $600 per year and from Scott & Gratz $150 per year for the last four years.
    17. There was but one triennial assessment during these four years. Mr. Barclay attended the appeals and paid the taxes on the lapds in Bedford county, but Mr. B-obison attended to these duties for him in Fulton county, and Mr. Gaither in Somerset county, and to each of these gentlemen he paid $5 for services,, out of the funds of the estate.
    18. -These lands have been growing in value for several years past. The estate has sustained no actual loss by reason of no-sales being made, but excellent sales of timber and bark could have been made during the past two years. The market during these years being good and fair prices were offered.
    19. In not making sales Mr. Barclay has been guided by the discretionary power given him in the will, upon the advice of •counsel and friends and by the belief that the estate would realize more by holding the lands. His efforts and intentions have been honest, and there is no allegation to the contrary. A close personal friendship has always existed between Mr. Barclay and the devisees and legatees under the will. _
    OPINION.
    'There were two exceptions filed to this account.' One, however, w:as withdrawn so that there remains but one, and that is to the allowance of the accountant. Mr. Barclay claims an allowance of $1,200.00 and bases his claim upon 5 per cent, commissions, on the amount of charges in the account for his services as administrator, and the balance for outside and office attention to the lands. The exceptants object to any extra allowance and claim that he tib entitled only to such compensation as administrators are ordinarily entitled to and that he cannot be allowed for the performance of duties that might have been required of an agent or attorney in fact, if one had been appointed. That, although the will provided for the appointment of a sober and competent person to assist the administrator in making sales, &c., yet if no such person was appointed and he managed the affairs of the estate without aid from an agent, that the duties performed were self-imposed and by reason of the fiduciary relation he sustained to the estate, he would be limited in his charges for services to such things only as came within, the line of his administratorship. And they allege as a matter of fact that during the last four years there was no such actual services outside. of the ordinary duties of administrator as ■would entitle him to extra compensation. In support of the position that, being administrator c. t. a., he would not be permitted to act at the same time in the ■capacity of agent and that he must be limited in his charges to such compensation as is ordinarily given to administrators, counsel for exceptants have cited numerous authorities and among others ‘Williams on Exrs., 1961 and 2. Hill on Trustees, 889 ; 2nd Dow & Clark, 51; 3rd Pere Williams, 249 ; 1st MeNaugliton & Gordon, 663 ; 12 C., 174 ; Wistar’s Appeal, 4 P. P. Smith 60.
    In opposition to this principle, counsel for the administrator cites among other authorities, Williams on Exrs. supra, Mumma’s Accounts, 5 Clark, 424, McCloskey’s Estate 2, W. N. C. 114. The English chancery reports and the English rules of practice sustain the position taken by the exceptants, but I am inclined to the opinion that the rule has not been carried so far in Pennsylvania. In Wistars Appeal, the assignee was a lawyer ; he had charge of wild lands like these, and he made large claims for his services asassignee and as counsel. In the final determination of the case he was allowed $100.00 for his services as counsel, besides cou - missions as assignee. In Mumma’s Account the claim for professional services was allowed. It seems to be the rule in this state, that, though the Courts have held that 2J per cent, on real estate and 5 per cent, on personalty is a fair compensation, ordinarily, to trustees, executors, &c., yet there are cases where this amount would hardly be sufficient for the trouble, risk, &c. So that it now seems to be conceded, that keeping in view these rates as guides, the allowance must be determined by the circumstances and surroundings, and by the labor, trouble, responsibility, risk, &c., incident to the settlement of each estate, “the Court always being the judge as to the propriety, necessity and value of the services,” and this applies with full force both as to claims-for commissions as executors, &c., as well as to allowance for extra-services, and is the basis upon which the claim in this case should be determined. The position as administrator is an lionorableone, and the person is always selected for that position by the-' parties interested because of the confidence had in him as an individual, and because of his skill, ability and responsible character, and while it is not expected that he -will undertake the labors and perform the duties gratuitously, yet it is as well expected that the position shall not be used to make profit. In this case, warm, personal friendship has long existed between the-parties interested and Mr. Barclay. Eor years he had been the agent and attorney in fact for the executor and executrix. During these years he had been repeatedly over every tract of land owned by this estate. lie knew the location of every tract, the lines of the survej-s; whether they were accessible to market-., and in fact, as agent and attorney in fact, he had acquired the knowledge contemplated and .desired by Abram Kerns when in his will he directed the employment of an agent to look up the lands so that “no sales should be made without actual knowledge of and surveying the respective tracts previous to closing sales.” When, therefore, the estate stood in need of some one to manage its affairs as administrator, the heirs desired Mr. Barclay to assume the duties of the trust. They knew he had skill, ability, was honest and had a thorough knowledge of the affairs of the estate. By reason of his employment as agent and attorney in fact by the executor and executrix he had acquired this knowledge. He had been fairly compensated for his time and labor out of the funds of the estate, and the heirs no doubt felt that to place a different person in that position would be to incur extra expenses, because the appointment of a person unacquainted with the lands would require the employment of an agent to carry out wishes of the testator, and they knew full well that no agent would be required if Mr. Barclay accepted the trust, because of the extensive knowledge of the lands that he had acquired while acting as agent and attorney m fact for Mr. Mann and Mrs. Fisher.
    
    With the death of Mr. Mann and Mrs. Fisher, the power of attorney to Mr. Barclay expired. When he, therefore, took out letters of administration cum testamento annexo, de bonis non, on this estate, he occupied the same position as do all administrators. He was bound to give the estate the benefit of his skill, ability and information, to watch over its interests, prudently and economically manage its affairs and realize out of the estate. the most that was possible for the heirs. He was no longer agent or attorney in fact. The information which he imparted as agent or attorney in fact to the executor he was now in possession of as administrator, and he was bound to use it for the benefit of the estate, and this too without any extra compensation. If the condition of affairs necessitated surveying of the lands, or repeated •visits to the different tracts to drive off’ trespassers, or the p< rformance of duties that would not ordinarily be expected or required of him as administrator, then the Court -would allow him extra compensation for his time, labor, &c. According io the administration account, and the testimony of Mr. Sams, Mr. Barclay spent some seventeen days surveying on these lands, during the last four years, and according to liis testimony, and that of Colonel Tate, and others, he was on these lands, during this time, often enough to see that no one was trespassing. The estate was made up entirely of mountain lands and these had to be cared for.
    As administrator c. t. a. he was required to attend the appeals; to pay the taxes and give such attention that the estate might not suffer loss for want of interest in its affairs ; to impart information to persons desiring to purchase ; to make sales and leases of lands, timber, bark or mineral. These were his duties as administrator. ■ A number of witnesses were called who testified that the amount charged by the administrator, outside of his commissions, would be a fair compensation to him for services in attending to 1,400 acres of wild land during the period of four years.
    This might be a fair compensation to him as agent, and, no doubt would be, during this period of time, and if his compensation as agent were now being fixed, I would feel no hesitation in accepting the amount mentioned by the witnesses ; but is he, while acting in the capacity of administrator to receive his commissions on the collections and in addition to this be allowed what would be a fair compensation for an agent? "While, as before indicated, it is my opinion that extra compensation should be allowed when extra labor, risk, &c., are thrown on the executor or administrator, and while I think this a proper case for the allowance of extra compensation, yet I do not think the Courts have gone so far as to allow full compensation to one as agent while in his capacity as administrator he at the same time gets the ordinary commissions allowed in the settlement of estates. Hence, in considering the evidence of these witnesses in the light of the fact that Mr. Barclay was administrator of the estate, and as such was bound to render faithful services as administrator so far as the ordinary affairs of the estate were concerned, for the ordinary compensation, and in view of the fact that the same services which procured the contracts for sales of bark, &e., produced the fund on which the commissions are allowed; I cannot agree with the witnesses in the amount fixed by them as additional or extra compensation. He made no sales of real estate during these four years, hut three contracts for. sale of hark, and a few small contracts for ties and timber, and the collections caused no great degree of trouble, so that, aside from the ordinary demands and duties incident to his administratorship, there was no very excessive demand upon his time or labor. During the last two years he was urged by the Misses Beamer to sell, and they informed him that their necessities were such that they were greatly in need of funds and by selling their wants would have been relieved, but he had a discretionary power in the will, and while other persons might have sold during this time, there being a good market with fair prices, yet after consulting counsel and friends he did not sell, because it seemed to be his belief and opinion that the time had not yet arrived for the sale of these lands, that they were growing in value, and the estate would be benefitted by holding on to them. The heirs could have gone into Court and by citation might have put matters in such a shape that he would have sold, but this was not done and the lands still remain unfold. From the opinions ventured by witnesses on both sides, I take it that the lands have been growing-in value and that the estate has not yet sustained loss on account of no sales being made,' although there is a difference of opinion as to this. Entertaining these views on the questions of law and of fact, and in view of the further fact that Mr. Barclay’s personal expenses while attending- to the duties of the estate were paid out of the funds of the estate, and that he has credit tor them in this account, I am of the opinion that under the circumstances and siu-roundings of this case eight hundred dollars would he a proper and fair allowance to the accountant in this account. The amount of $400.00 should therefore be added to the balance in his hands as shown by his administration account.
    Exceptions were filed to this report by the administrator and also by the heirs, and the Court reduced the administrator’s compensation still further, ar.d directed him to pay one-half the costs by the following opinion:
    Per Curiam :
    This ease came up for argument on exceptions filed by the accountant complaining of a- reduction of his compensation claimed in the account, and on exceptions on behalf of persons interested in the estate, complaining, because 1st, the reduction made in compensation was not large enough and that costs should have been put on the administrator.
    The auditor finds and reports certain facts, and exceptions are also filed to the finding of facts, and the Court is asked to set aside his finding.
    The rule of law is that an .auditor’s report adjudicating facts ought not to be set aside except for plain mistake apparent on the face of the report, or established by affirmative evidence; Stehman’s Appeal, 6 Barr, 413.
    As to the material facts found, we find nothing on the face of the report, nor anything from affirmative evidence, that will warrant us in disturbing the finding.
    This out of the way, the case turns solely on the question of compensation, and incident to this is a question of costs. The determination of such a question is both difficult and unpleasant. The claimant or accountant generally measures the compensation on the basis of his business transactions, while the Court is bound to measure it by some rule of law.
    The rule guiding the Court is that “compensation should be adequate to the care and trouble, with liberal allowance for necessary expenses, but in no case must the Court permit the trust to be made an office of profit; to do so would be debasing the sanctity of the trust; this has been a long established rule, see Pusey vs. Glemson 9 S. and B., 209, and the courts of to-day are rigidly enforcing it.
    A moment’s reflection will satisfy all men that courts cannot discharge their duties without rigidly enforcing the rule — the Orphans’ Court is the especial guardian of dead men’s estates, and any winking at acts that would tend to debase the sanctity of the trust held by executors, administrators and guardians, would be a terrible dereliction of dutju
    Unpleasant as the duty becomes, the Court is bound to intervene, even after an auditor upon full examination has measured the compensation, if exceptions be filed.
    Then it becomes the duty of the Court to ascertain as best they can what the services of the administrator are actually worth; this cannot be done by any inflexible rule based on a fixed rate per cent.., but. regard must be had to the amount of the estate, the sum necessarily expended, the amount of bond required, and the responsibility of the trust, and the compensation should be graduated accordingly.
    The Court will necessarily look to the testimony to see what actual labor was performed, and ascertain if possible whether all or how much of it was necessary to be done. The- opinion of witnesses as to what in view of the matter was necessary is a feature in the ease, but the Court must view in connection with the nature of the trust the character of the estate, and the law. Witnesses differ in their estimate according as their knowledge of the duties of the trust,, and of the basis of compensation differ ; some men engaged in a lucrative business, where time is valuable and income large — might measure the compensation on a higher basis than would other equally .qualified persons do, who are engaged in less lucrative pursuits and where time is not compensated so largely.
    What were the services worth to an average citizen, .qualified for the discharge of the duties, and how faithfully, prudently and promptly have the duties been performed ? These questions will of necessity arise in every ease where a contest is made.
    If the Court must determine the matter, as a jury would a question of fact, by preponderance of evidence, without regard to its own opinion, upon full hearing of the merits of the case, then its powers and functions arc subordinated to the opinion of individuals (no matter of how high standing) whose experience and familiarity with settlements of estates is much less than the ■ Court’s might be, who though sworn as witnesses, have not the same responsibility upon them, that the Court has. They are doubtless all honest in their opinions ; but they generally apply a different standard of the measure of the value of services.
    As a rule all business is engaged in with a view to profit, and witnesses generally measure the value of services in the light at least of a reasonable profit, when they come to fix amounts, heuco it is that the Court in determining the question upon, a different basis, must look more to the facts in the case than to the opinion of witnesses, and draw its own conclusions from the facts.
    
      It is the sworn duty of the Court -to stand as watchman in the settlement of estates in its jurisdiction, and' to decide conscientiously, so that no injustice may be done to the trustee or the t.u d estate.
    In the light of our duty, upon full examination and consideration of all that has been made to'appear in this 'case, we are of opinion that it is our imperative duty in this case, to reduce the amount claimed for compensation. Not because there is anything whatever in the case that indicates mismanagement, carelessness, intentional procrastination, or want of faithfulness to the best interests of the persons interested in the estate. But because from the face of the several accounts filed by the administrator, from the report of the auditor and the testimony reported, and from the amount accounted for in the last account filed and now under consideration, it is manifest that the claim for compensation is disproportioned to the amount passing through his hands and the labor and trouble necessary to be expended about the same, and the responsibility incident thereto.
    That the claim as made may have been measured by the compensation heretofore allowed him by his predecessors, for services as agent, is possible; and this may have led him to think his claim a reasonable one, and it certainly takes away the semblance of any effort at extortion and of managing the estate in his own interest. • But this cannot satisfy the conscience of the Court; it must measure by a different rule, and must keep claimant clown to fair compensation for the sum of labor actually and necessarily bestowed, with a liberal allowance for necessary expenses and risk and responsibility incurred, and as this cannot be measured by a fixed rate, we are of opinion a gross sum of $450 allowance, will be adequate compensation. And as some of the costs result from a contest on the compensation, and would not have occurred on mere distribution, we rule that one-half the costs bo paid by the accountant and one-half by the estate.
    This latter ruling on the costs becomes a necessity, where the compensation is the issue before the auditor; we could have allowed so much leas, and let the costs follow the fund, but this would have been a shirking of duty that in the future might rise up to haunt us when like questions on smaller or greater estates come before us and when parties do not stand so high and deservedly well as does the trustee in this case.
    It is therefore ordered aud adjudged that the report be sent back to the auditor with instructions that he strike $350 from the amount of compensation allowed by his report, and one-half the amount of costs of audit as fixed by his report, and add them to the debit side of the account and that the balance in hands of the administrator so augmented by the additions aforesaid,, upon being struck and ascertained be distributed on the basis of the report made — and that upon being so reformed, the report upon being filed be marked confirmed.
    Barclay then appealed, complaining of the action of the Court in reducing his compensation and in imposing one-half the costs upon him.
    
      J. M. Reynolds, Esq. for appellant,
    argued that an administrator is entitled to compensation, equal to the actual value of his services, and not merely a percentage on the amount passing through his hands ; Wistar’s Appeal, 54 Pa. 60; Mumma’s Accounts, 5 Clark 424; McCloskey’s Estate, 2 W. N. C. 114. The question is: how much has the trustee earned ? Montgomery’s Appeal, 86 Pa. 230. The law has fixed no rule for measuring the rate; Heckert’s Appeal, 24 Penna. 486. The administrator is entitled to compensation though he made no sales of real estate ; Biddle’s Appeal, 83 Pa. 344. The imposition of costs on the administrator was error; McElhenny’s Appeal, 46 Pa. 347.
    
      J. H. Longenecker, M. A. Points, and John Cessna, Esqs., for appellees
    argued, that an administrator’s compensation was from 2-|- to 5 per cent.; Pusey vs. Clemson, 9 S. & R. 204; Walker’s Estate, 9 S. & R. 223; Gable’s Appeal, 36 Pa. 395; Wistar’s Appeal, 54 Pa. 60; Carrier’s Appeal, 79 Pa. 230. An administrator cannot employ himself as an agent for the estate ; Scattergood vs. Harrison, Mosely 128; Robinson vs. Pett, 3 P. Williams 219; Brocksopp vs. Barnes, 5 Maddock Ch 61; Ayliffe vs. Murray, 2 Atkyns 58; Bruden vs. Bruden, 1 Vesey & Beames 170; Stocker vs. Dawson, 6 Beavan Ch. 371; New vs. Jones, 1 McNaghten & Gordon 667; Nicholson vs. Tutin, 3 Kay & Johnson 159; Moore vs. Frowd, 3 Mylne & Craig 45; Robinett’s Appeal, 36 Pa. 190; Clauser’s Estate, 84 Pa. 51.
    The administrator increased the costs and expenses of the audit, by presenting' an unfounded claim, and was properly chargeable with part of the costs; Gable’s Appeal, 36 Pa. 395; Berryhill’s Appeal, 35 Pa. 245; Holman’s Appeal, 24 Pa. 174; Norris’ Appeal, 71 Pa. 106; Clauser’s Estate, 84 Pa. 51.
   The Supreme Court reversed the decree of the Orphans’ Court on May 26, 1884, in the following opinion ; per,

Green, J.:

A careful examination of the record in this case has convinced us that the estimate placed by the auditor upon the value of the accountant’s service to the estate was correct, and hence there was error in the action of the Court below in reducing +1'e amount of the accountant’s compensation. The estate o 1 1he testator-consisted largely of wilfl lands, aggregating about 14,cue acres, and scattered over four counties and in a mountainous region. These required constant care and watchfulness, payment of taxes, protection against trespassers, the exercise of a correct ■discretion as to sales authorized by the will of the testator, and an honest and upright administration of the finances of the trust. In all these respects the auditor has found that the accountant was an exemplary and faithful officer, and we see nothing to call in question the correctness of that finding. Prior to the death of the executors' named in the will, the accountant had been employed by them, under the authority given by the will, to act-as their agent in managing the real estate, and subsequently in making sales, and for his services in 1870 he was allowed $200, and in 1871 $300 by the executors. At the death of the executors, it was the desire of all the parties in interest that Mr. Barclay should be appointed and act as administrator c. t. a., and, at their request, he assumed this position. The auditor finds that the parties had full’ confidence in Mr. Barclay, and desired to obtain the benefit of his comprehensive knowledge of the lands and of their value for bark, timber and minerals, and for that reason selected him to administer the affairs' of the estate. He also finds that the lands required extra care and attention through the bark season* which was given by Mr. Barclay, and that “his position as administrator c. t. a. required him to watch the interest of the estate, and to be ready at all times to furnish information to parties who might desire to purchase, and who wished to know the location and extent of surveys, the quality and quantity of timber, &c., and that this could only be done by showing the drafts or going upon the land, and in these respects Mr. Barclay was always ready and willing, and fully performed his duty.” He also finds that Mr. Barclay was always present with the' surveyors when they were running lines; 'that he was on the lands at different times to see that no trespassing had been done; that he attended appeals and paid taxes; that the lands have • been growing in value for several years past; that in not making sales he was guided by the discretionary power given in the will and the advice of counsel and friends, and that “his efforts and intentions have been honest, and there is no allegation to the contrary.” The compensation claimed for the accountant for his four years service, including his commission upon sums received, was $1,200. The auditor, for reasons stated in his report, reduced this sum to $800. And this we think, in view of all the circumstances of the case, was a very moderate and reasonable allowance. The auditor admitted that the whole amount claimed was a fair compensation for the accountant’s services as agent, and that he would have allowed it if the accountant had acted in that capacity only, hut because he was administrator, although he rendered the full services of agent, he thought he must reduce the compensation to a lower standard, and he accordingly did so. The propriety of this reduction might well be questioned ; but as that subject is not before us, we do not discuss it. The learned judge of the Court below made a still further reduction of $350, and, in doing so, seems to have acted upon the theory that the compensation must be regulated by a consideration only of the sum which actually passed through the accountant’s hands. It is only necessary to say that the compensation of accountants does not depend upon so limited a view. In Montgomery’s Appeal, 5 Nor. 234, Mr. Justice Gordon said : “But after all, on_all authority, it is a question not of percentage, but of compensation. It therefore comes to nothing to say that the percentage is large or the percentage is small compared with the estate, if the executor has received neither less nor more than what his services are worth.” It is quite unnecessary to repeat what has so often been said by this Court, that persons serving in a fiduciary capacity are entitled to be paid actual compensation for the value of their services, and that the amount must be determined by considering all the circumstances of the particular case. In Biddle’s Appeal, 2 Nor. 344, Mr. Justice Paxson, concluding, shows that the compensation of a trustee was not to be limited to the mere .income which passed through his hands, and'that the corpus of the estate might be used in rendering adequate compensation, and that this might be done even where sales were not made, but as compensation for care and management of real estate. There is no occasion to engage in a detailed discussion of the facts of this case or of the authorities cited in argument. We are clearly of opinion that the learned Court below was in error, in reducing the accountant’s compensation below the amount allowed by the auditor, and in imposing any part of the costs upon the accountant. All the assignments of error are sustained.

Decree reversed, exceptions to the auditor’s report dismissed, and the account and distribution, as stated by the auditor, confirmed, the costs of this appeal to be paid by the appellees.

Note. — In the following eases more than five per cent, was allowed; Kennedy’s Appeal, 4 Penna. 149; Miller’s Estate, 1 Ashmead 323; Cox’s Estate, 5 W. N. C. 474; McCloskey’s Estate, 11 Phila. 95.  