In Re Estate of Quinn

Stockbridge, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The appeal in this case is from an order of the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City, by which exceptions to the allowance of a fee of one thousand dollars, made to the late S'. S. Field out of the trust estate of P'atriok M. Quinn, were overruled. The real parties to the case are James Q. Farmer against his brothers and sisters and nephew and nieces. ¹⁵⁶ The parties excepting to the account and appealing from the action of the lower Court are Mary A. Farmer, as trustee and individually, and Margaret M. Farmer.

Their objection is based upon the theory that Mr. Field was in reality representing only the individual interest of James Q|. Farmer, and that he did not represent the trustees, that the interest of James Q. Farmer wasi antagonistic to that of the other parties, and therefore it would be improper to allow Mr. Field a fee to be paid out of the general trust estate when the interest of James Q. Farmer represented only a small fraction of the entire trust estate, approximately onenfifth. So far as it appears from the record, all of the parties to the proceeding are and were, at the time when the services are •claimed to have been rendered, mi juris> and there was no reason why they were incompetent to contract for themselves for the rendition of proper and necessary legal services. It clearly appears from the testimony of Mr. Field that there was no contractual relation, and it is the settled law of this State that in all proceedings by or against executors, administrators and trustee®, in cases where there is more than one, that they are deemed to act as a single entity, and not as diverse individuals.

That Mr. Field did not represent Mary A. Farmer as trustee, in conjunction with James Q. Farmer the other trustee, is perfectly manifest from the testimony of Mary A. Farmer, which is in entire accord with the testimony of Mr..Field, and this is further borne out by the fact that Miss Farmer did employ other counsel to represent her, and that in certain matters connected with the settlement of the estate counsel employed by Mary A. Farmer acted conjointly with Mr. Field, although at certain points they were in opposition. No question is raised in the record or briefs as to the amount allowed Mr. Field for his services, the sole controversy being whether he was entitled to any compensation at all from the trust estate, or whether he was required to look solely to Mr. James Q. Farmer, by whom he had been employed.