Barrett

I concur in the judgment solely on the ground that the matter of compensation of attorneys was within the discretion of the court below, and that, under former decisions, a case is not here presented which warrants us to interfere with that discretion. Personally, I think that the amount allowed Mr. Merrill for services as attorney was too small.

The following opinion was rendered by the court in Bank, upon petition for rehearing, on the 7th of November, 1898:

The appellantin this cause petitions for a rehearing after judgment in Department. As the appeal was submitted without oral argument, and has been reconsidered by the court in Bank upon the briefs and petition, we have concluded to modify the judgment of the Department without further delay in those slight particulars in which we think it is erroneous.

In addition to those items of the account which were approved by the findings, but omitted from the order settling the account, we are of the opinion that the charge of twenty dollars, designated in the opinion heretofore rendered as item 7, should ¡{rave been allowed. The evidence does not support finding 36, upon which it was rejected. It appears without contradiction in…

This is the appeal of Maggie G. Barrett from the order settling her final account as administratrix of the estate of Joseph Byrne, deceased.

1. The first rejected item is for $7.70. It represents the railroad fare and expenses of appellant incurred upon a trip from San Francisco to Auburn before she had applied for letters of administration, but when she was taking steps so to do. It was properly rejected. It has been decided that the compensation of an attorney to aid an applicant in securing letters, whether the application be successful or not, is no proper charge against the estate. (Estate of Simmons, 43 Cal. 543 .) This item of expense incurred in the same manner stands upon no different plane.

2. For the same reason the rejection of the second item, also for $7.70, for traveling expenses in attending the hearing of the contest over letters of administration, was also proper.

3. This item of $8.35 was allowed by the court in its findings, but by some inadvertence its allowance was not inserted in the order. If the attention of the trial court had been directed to the oversight, it would undoubtedly have been corrected. It *262 should he allowed as of course, hut the…