Charlton's Appeal

1. Where an administrator, pursuant to an order of the Orphans’ Court, has paid over money to a distributee, he will be protected against loss if the •court should subsequently open and change the decree. Stewart’s Appeal, 5 Norris 149, followed. 2. Where voluntary payments have been made by an administrator, and there is a subsequent decree in favor of the person to whom they were made, the administrator will be protected thereby.

Appeal from the Orphans’ Court' of Philadelphia county: Of July Term 1878, No. 89. The proceedings in this case were as follows: Mary Ann Charlton died intestate, on January 27th 1875. On February 25th 1876, her administrator, T. Stewart, filed his account, showing a balance of $2351.66. On the 3d of April 1876, this account was confirmed nisi, and the balance in the hands of the administrator was awarded to the decedent’s daughter, Mrs. Conrad. No exceptions having been filed to the account the confirmation became absolute on the 24th of April, by a rule of court. During the year 1875, the administrator had advanced Mrs. Conrad $1850, and on May 9th 1876, under an ex parte order of the Orphans’ Court made on May 6th, the balance in the accountant’s hands, less $13.50 court costs, was paid to her. On the 27th of April, W. M. Charlton, who alleged he was the husband of decedent, filed exceptions to the confirmation of the account, and also a petition for a review, and the court opened the adjudication to permit him to be heard. The administrator had no notice of this proceeding, when he paid the balance on the 9th of May. On the 8th of December 1876, a corrected adjudication was filed, and the administrator was directed to pay Charlton, as husband of the decedent, one-half of the balance for distribution, viz.: $1175.83. From this decree the administrator appealed to this court, which reversed the court below, and the case was remitted to the Oi’phans’ Court to determine whether the money which had been paid to Mrs. Conrad, in pursuance of the decree of May 6th 1876, had been paid, before notice of the application for a review. On February 16th 1878, the Orphans’ Court referred the matter to a master, to take testimony and report on this point. The master found the foregoing facts, in substance, and so reported. The court then vacated the order of April 27th 1876, dismissed the exceptions of Chax-lton, and set aside the adjudication of December 8th 1876 in his favor. From this decree he took this appeal.. i