Opinion
November 25, 1941.
January 5, 1942.
Orphans' court — Practice — Review — Trustee's account-Laches — Matter of grace or right — Circumstances.
Review of a trustee's account, sought almost four years after it had been audited and confirmed absolutely, raising questions which could have been presented at the audit of the trustee's account, was, under the circumstances, a matter of grace and not of right, and the court below did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition on the ground of laches.
Argued November 25, 1941.
Before SCHAFFER, C. J.; MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON and PARKER, JJ.
Appeals, Nos. 232 and 233, Jan. T., 1941, from decree of O. C. Phila. Co., April T., 1885, No. 256, in Estate of Joseph M. Gottschalk, deceased. Decree affirmed.
Petition for review of trustee's account.
Report of master filed recommending dismissal on ground of laches. Exceptions to report dismissed and final decree entered, before VAN DUSEN, P. J.; STEARNE, SINKLER, KLEIN and BOLGER, JJ., opinion per curiam. Petitioners appealed.
Cecil P. Harvey, with him Walter Jones, for appellants.
John Russell, Jr., with him Randal Morgan, of Morgan, Lewis Bockius, for appellee.
This is a petition for review of a trustee's account, filed April 5, 1940, pursuant to section 48 of the Fiduciaries Act of June 7, 1917, P. L. 447, 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 843. The account was filed March 6, 1936, was audited and confirmed absolutely June 13, 1936. After answer, the proceeding was referred to a master, who, after hearing, filed a report recommending the dismissal on the ground of laches. In his report, he said, "and inasmuch as the petitioners had unusual advantage by reason of the preliminary discussions before the account was filed, having had copies of the account which ordinarily are not sent to parties in interest, and having been notified of the day of the audit, the Master holds as a matter of law, they are guilty of laches." Exceptions to his report were filed and heard by the court in banc and were disposed of in an opinion from which we quote, "The questions which are now raised by the Petitioners could have been presented at the audit of the trustee's account in May, 1936. All relevant facts were then known or available to the parties. They had copies of the account and notice of the audit, and by their signatures approved the schedule of distribution and executed satisfactions of award. As was said in Scott's Appeal, 112 Pa. 427, 'something is due to the finality of judicial proceedings.' " In addition, we refer, for construction of section 48, to Bailey's Estate, 291 Pa. 421, 424, 140 A. 145; Osterling's Estate, 337 Pa. 225, 227 et seq., 10 A.2d 17; Colladay's Estate, 333 Pa. 218, 219, 3 A.2d 787; Com., to use, v. Toebe, 315 Pa. 218, 222-223, 173 A. 169; Downing v. Felheim, 309 Pa. 566, 573, 164 A. 598; Capuzzi's Estate, 306 Pa. 27, 34, 158 A. 555; Chauncey's Estate, 303 Pa. 441, 445, 154 A. 814. These cases amply support appellee's contention that on this record the review sought was of grace and not of right, and that there was no abuse of discretion.
Decree affirmed at appellants' costs.