lows the method of the similar volumes edited for the Selden Society by the late Professor Maitland, Mr. Horwood, Mr. Pike, and others, viz.: the French text on one side of the page and the corresponding translation opposite, together with such notes from the record as can be supplied.

part of the decree. Both items second | sion to praise. The first of the present and third were illegal payments under volumes is a step toward filling in the The executor could not law-only remaining gap in the English Comfully use this residue for the widow's mon Law Reports, a notable piece of support. He cannot claim that this sum work for an American to accomplish. was paid, and, therefore, came within the It is called "The Year-Books of Richexception to the act. He is both the ard II, 1388-89," and is edited by George payer and the payee. Mr. Justice Head, F. Deiser, LL. B., Librarian of the Hirst in Ehrhart's Estate, 31 Pa. Superior Ct., Free Law Library, Philadelphia. It 120, said: “The refinement by which the covers more than half the cases for the appellant would be regarded as two per-unreported reign of Richard II, and folsons, payer and payee, . . . is too subtle to be adopted by a court dealing with substantial equities." We are thus compelled to grant this application as to the third item. We say without hesitation that we do this because our investigation forces us to this conclusion by irresistible statutory command. We will not enlarge the order beyond this item, nor will we at this time appoint an auditor. On the record it only appears that one of the heirs is dissatisfied with this expenditure that was made for their mother's comfort. If we should appoint an auditor, and the averment in the answer were proven, that the petitioner agreed to this item, the costs of the audit should go on her. We think this is a case where counsel should endeavor | to arrange a settlement. If, however, that is impossible, upon the application of the petitioner, we will appoint an auditor to pass upon and consider the third item.

Petition for review as to the third item is granted.

Legal Miscellany.

Medieval English Law.

The other volume is entitled "Burgage Tenure in Medieval England," by Dr. Morley de Wolf Hemmeon, and is Vol. XX of the well-known Harvard Historical Studies. This means that it is published under the Department of History of Harvard University, and in this case it comes with the further recommendation of the Toppan Prize in History. It is the first attempt to give adequate treatment to the subject of land-tenure in the medieval boroughs-a subject of particular interest to-day because it traces the origin and development of freedom of sale and devise, and of legal conditions in this respect very like those of to-day. Dr. Hemmeon treats of the relation of urban to feudal and socage tenures, and draws a comparison with the urban tenures of the Continent. Here, in German burgage tenure, he finds a subject which is much akin, but has never been directly treated before, either in German or in English; and to it he devotes a special appendix. (Harvard University Press: Year-Books

The study of medieval law is a de-of Richard II. Edited by G. F. Deiser. partment of research in which American $5.00. Burgage Tenure in Mediæval scholarship bids fair to show unusual England. By M. de W. Hemmeon. success. Two books dealing with the de- $2.00.) velopment of English law have recently come from the Harvard University Press, which began paying especial attention to this subject in publishing the late Dean Ames Lectures on Legal History," which Lord Haldane has just taken occa

to show specific services justifying the pay-petition was filed on behalf of John T.

said John T. Hill sold by the guardian, amounting in all to $2,291.75, and the sum of $4,036.22, the amount awarded to W. C. Whiteside, guardian of John T. Hill, in the adjudication of the account of W. C. Whiteside, administrator d. b. n. of the estates of Mary C. Hill and Winfield S. Hill, deceased, by the Orphans' Court of Lancaster County, recorded in Distribution Book L, 589.

Four exceptions have been filed to the debit side of the account, alleging that the accountant has not charged himself with all the moneys he received or should have received. No evidence has been adduced to sustain any of these exceptions and they are therefore dismissed.

The fifth exception is to numerous items of credit in the account. Among the items of credit to which it applies are the following:

$100.00

To all of which I bind myself my heirs or assigns firmly by these presents. Witness my hand and seal this 3rd day of June, A. D. 1901.

(Signed) JOHN T. HILL (Seal). Signed sealed and delivered in our presence.

(Signed) Frank Reburn.

Wm. C. Whiteside.

This agreement, by its terms, is a contract for services to be performed, and it is not more binding because it has a seal than it would be without a seal, if it could be shown that the services under it were performed. None of the money mentioned as being in the hands of E. A. Brown, was received prior to January 20, 1902, at which time W. C. Whiteside was appointed trustee of John T. Hill, weak-minded. The first money awarded to W. C. Whiteside, guardian of John T. Hill, was $3,102.48, on the 20th day of July, 1905, by the Orphans' Court of Lancaster County, in the adjudication of the account of E. A. Brown, administrator of Mary C. Hill and Win60.00 field S. Hill, deceased, Distribution Book C, 1905, p. 554. From this W. C. Whiteside, administrator d. b. n. of Mary C. Hill and Winfield S. Hill, dec'd, took an appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which reversed the judgment of the lower Court and awarded the money in question to him as administrator of the Hill Estates: Hill's Estate, 32 Sup. Ct., 508. A part of this money was afterward turned over by the attorneys of Davis A. Brown, administrator of E. A. Brown, dec'd, to W. C. Whiteside, administrator d. b. n. of the Hill Estates.

40.00

125.00

75.00

$400.00

To sustain these credits the accountant has produced an agreement marked " F. S. G., No. 2," which reads as follows:

"Know all men by these presents That I, John T. Hill of Little Britain Twp Lancaster Co. Pa do agree to pay to Eber E. Hilton or his assigns the sum of Four Hundred Dollars for services that he may render in the collection of money due me from the Estates of my mother Mary C. Hill and my brother Winfield S. Hill the said money is now in possession of E. A. Brown the administrator of said Estates, and he has neglected or declined to file an account. The said sum of money or Four Hundred Dollars ($400.) is to be paid as soon as said money is collected.

The next moneys received, that could in the slightest way be considered a part of the money which Eber E. Hilton agreed to assist in collecting, was in the payment of the judgments against the esate of Samuel Fite, dec'd, who was one of the sureties on the bond of E. A. Brown. administrator of the Hill Esates. August Term, 1903, Nos. 77 and 73 respectively, for $531.38 each, May 6, 1007, to the attorneys of W. C. Whiteside. administrator d. b. n. of the estates of Mary C. Hill and Winfield S. Hill, dec'd.

All of the said sum of $400 was paid | thonotary, costs, Equity Docket No. 3, p. 369, v. Harry Brown et al., $52.30", it is a sufficient answer to quote from thedecree in said suit: "that the costs of this proceeding be paid by the estate of John T. Hill, in the hands of Wm. C. Whiteside, his guardian", Equity Docket No. 3, p. 370. The record shows that the costs, $52.30, were paid by W. C. Whiteside, guardian. The fifth Exception, therefore, so far as the same relates to this item of credit, is dismissed.

to Eber E. Hilton prior to the time that any money was received from E. A. Brown or his estate. Neither John T. Hill, Eber E. Hilton nor W. C. Whiteside, guardian of John T. Hill, collected the money from E. A. Brown or his estate. It was collected partly from the estate of Samuel Fite, dec'd, one of the sureties on the administration bond of E. A. Brown, by W. C. Whiteside, administrator d. b. n. of the estates of Mary C. Hill and Winfield S. Hill, dec'd, whose duty is was to collect this money. The only evidence of the services rendered by Eber E. Hilton in the collection of this money, is found on pages 24, 28, 30, 31, 32 of the Notes of Testimony. It is vague, indefinite and unconvincing. The administrator d. b. n. of the estates of Mary C. Hill and Winfield S. Hill, dec'd, received his commission for the services rendered the estates. The agreement was executory," for services that he may render, etc.'

W. C. Whiteside was appointed guardian of John T. Hill, weak-minded, on January 20, 1902, seven months and seventeen days after the date of the agrcement. The money never was received even by W. C. Whiteside, guardian of John T. Hill, until February 21, 1912, when the sum of $4,036.22 was awarded to him by the Orphans' Court of Lancaster County, in the adjudication of the account of W. C. Whiteside, administrator d. b. n. of the estates of Mary C. Hill and Winfield S. Hill, dec'd. The burden of sustaining the credit is on the accountant, and he should have produced evidence showing the extent, nature and character of the services rendered by Eber E. Hilton under the agreement, before he was entitled to the credit claimed. This the accountant failed to do. The contract is an entirety and no allowance can be made for partial performance thereof. Exception No. 5 is sustained so far as it relates to the items of credit for money paid to Eber E. Hilton on account of the said agreement, aggregating $400, and the accountant is therefore surcharged with that amount.

So far as Exception No. 5 relates to item of credit " 1911, Oct. 27, Paid Pro

The Fifth Exception includes the following items of Credit, viz.:

1912.

Apr. 19, Paid Wm. C. Whiteside, costs
in appeal from Common Pleas to
Supreme Court

Oct. 28, Paid Wm. C. Whiteside, costs
of appeal from Orphans' Court to
Supreme Court

1913.

July 5, Paid Conn & Slote, paper book
to Supreme Court

$16.00

16.00

34.50

These three items of the Fifth Exception may be considered together. In the appeal from the decree of the Orphans' Court, the appeal and paper book show that although it was taken ostensibly by W. C. Whiteside, administrator d. b. n. of the estates of Mary C. Hill and Winfield S. Hill, dec'd, it was in reality, an appeal of W. C. Whiteside individually, from a decree in favor of the estate, surcharging him, as accountant, with several sums of money.

On June 27, 1913, the Supreme Court, in affirming the decree appealed from, handed down the following opinion:

PER CURIAM. It will serve no good purpose to recite the undisputed facts upon which the Court below surcharged the appellant. It is sufficient to say that they left him no escape from the decree made. Every opportunity was given him to relieve himself, if he could, from the consequences which have resulted from his unfaithfulness as trustee, but he failed to do so, and the decree must, therefore, be affirmed. Appeal dismissed at appellant's costs." Hill's Estate (Whiteside's Appeal), 30 Lanc. L. R., 72.

The appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County to the

Was this item is concerned, is sustained, and the accountant is surcharged with the sum of $100.

The Fifth Exception also covers the following item:

with which he was surcharged in the Orphans' Court in the estates of Mary C. and Winfield S. Hill, dec'd, the principal of which was used in paying debts or for support of John T. Hill, only heir and distributee of said decedents, $781.24.

Accountant takes credit for interest

In Hill's Estate (Whiteside's Appeal), 30 Lanc. L. R., p. 369, the decree of the Orphans' Court of Lancaster County in making a surcharge of interest aggre

Exception No. 5, so far as it relates to the two items of credit of $16.00 each, costs in appeal to Supreme Court, is sustained, and the accountant surcharged with the sum of $16.00 costs in each ap-gating $966, including $781.24 embraced peal, making a total of $32.00. The same reasoning applies to the credit of $34.50, paid Conn & Slote, paper book to Supreme Court, and the Fifth Exception is sustained so far as it relates to this item of credit, and the accountant is surcharged with the amount of $34.50.