In Re Estate of Parker

LENNON, J.

This is an"appeal by Raymond E. Hoyt, as the attorney for the executrix in the above-entitled estate, from an order of the court below granting in part only a petition for fees for extraordinary services rendered and extraordinary expenses incurred by said attorney in behalf of said estate. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1616.) The petition in question prayed for an allowance in the sum of $311.35, of

[672]

which. $16.35 was for extraordinary expenses and the remaining $295 was claimed as a charge for extraordinary services rendered hy petitioner to the estate. The court helow upon a hearing of the petition made an order allowing the petitioner the sum of eighty-five dollars in full for the sums claimed to have been expended as extraordinary expenses and for attorney’s fees for the rendition of extraordinary services. The uncontradictcd evidence clearly shows that the extraordinary expenses, legitimately and necessarily incurred in the performance of services as attorney for the executrix of said estate, amounted to $16.35. Deducting this sum from the award of the court leaves $68.65 as the amount of the award for extraordinary services. It is contended that the order of the court is contrary to the undisputed facts in the ease and an abuse of discretion which may, therefore, be reversed by this court.

[1]

It may be conceded that upon the record before us the court below would have been warranted in allowing petitioner a much larger sum for his extraordinary services as attorney to the estate, but the allowance of attorney’s fees for such services rendered in the probate of an estate rests largely in the discretion of the court in the first instance and will not be reversed or modified unless this court can plainly see and unequivocally say that the order under review is absolutely and unqualifiedly an abuse of discretion.

(Estate of Adams,

131 Cal. 415, [63 Pac. 838];

Treadwell

v.

Treadwell,

134 Cal. 158, [66 Pac. 197].) In other words, as was said very recently in