ART. 93] ACCOUNT. 2027

The commissions allowed a collector, and those allowed an executor, are
distinct and independent. It is Immaterial, therefore, that the commissions
allowed the two officials aggregate more than ten per, cent. Wilson v. Wil-
son, 3 G. & J. 22. And see Lemmon v. Hall, 20 Md. 171; Renshaw v. Wil-
liams, 75 Md. 508.

The right to commissions does not arise from contract, but is founded on
the statute. The act of 1884, ch. 470, can not be construed retroactively so
as to bring within Its operation accounts stated prior to its adoption. Galnes
v. Reutch, 64 Md. 521.

One administrator is not entitled to the entire commission because he did
all the work. Richardson v. Stanshury, 4 H. & J. 275; cf. Brown v. Stewart,
4 Md. Ch. 368.

Commissions are not earned until the administration account is passed.
When commissions are forfeited. Kealhofer v. Emmert, 79 Md. 252.

As to an agreement to serve as administrator without commissions, see
Mott v. Fowler, 85 Md. 676. And see Ridgely v. Gittings, 2 H. & G. 58.

For a case decided prior to the act of 1884, ch. 470, and involving the ques-
tion of commissions as depending upon certain bonds being Included in the
Inventory, see In re Estate of Stratton, 46 Md. 553.

As to the tax on commissions of executors and administrators, see art. 81,
sec. 115, et seq.

Costs and Counsel Fees.

Caveat proceedings are not litigation "for the recovery or security of any
part of the estate," the cost of which may be allowed an administrator
pendente lite; contra, where an executor is called upon to defend a will
already probated. Harrison 11. Clark. 95 Md. 313; Miller v. Gehr. 91 Md. 714;
Dalrymple v. Gamble, 68 Md. 165; Townshend v. Brooke, 9 Gill, 91. And
see Koenig v. Ward, 104 Md. 565; Tilghman v. France, 99 Md. 616.

Counsel fees may be allowed an administrator, however, who successfully
establishes his right to letters. Ex Parte Young, 8 Gill, 286; cf. Koenig v.
Ward, 104 Md. 565.

The administrator of a supposed Intestate will not be allowed for services,
costs, fees, etc., expended in unsuccessfully attacking a will probated in
another state. This section construed in connection with section 104. Dal-
rymple v. Gamble. 68 Md. 163.

For a case denying the application of the words "for costs and extraor-
dinary expenses (not personal) laid out in the recovery or security of any
part of the estate" to an alleged attorney's fee, see Flater v. Weaver, 108 Md.
676. And see Browne v. Preston, 38 Md. 380 (involving a contlgent fee) ;
Blllingslea v. Henry, 20 Md. 287; Edelen v. Bdelen, 11 Md. 416.

While the allowance of a counsel fee is not the subject of issues, it is the
subject of appeal as to the reasonableness of the amount allowed. Miller v.
Gehr, 91 Md. 714; Maynadier v. Armstrong, 98 Md. 180.

Funeral expenses.

It Is within the discretion of the court to allow funeral expenses not to
exceed the maximum mentioned in this section; hence, such matter is not
a proper subject for issues. Maynadier v. Armstrong, 98 Md. 180. And as
to funeral expenses, see Wethered v. Safe Deposit Co., 79 Md. 160; Lentz v.
Pilert, 60 Md. 300; Shaeffer v. Shaeffer, 54 Md. 684.

A husband as executor of his wife's estate will not be allowed for funeral
expenses, medical attendance and tomb-stone—see notes to article 45, section
21; Stonesifer v. Shriver, 100 Md. 30.

As to funeral expenses, see also, art. 16, sec. 218.

Generally.

Cited but not construed in Winder v. Diffenderfer, 2 Bl. 207; West v.
Smith, 8 How. 412.

See sections 6, 65, 74 and 95 and notes.

Taxes are a preferred debt—art. 81, sec. 70; see also, art 81, sec. 68.