Opinion by
On March 2,1950, a petition was filed under the Act of May 28, 1907, P. L. 292, to have Emma Burk Sigel adjudged unable to take care of her propеrty and in consequence thereof liable to dissipate or lose the same and to become the victim of designing persons. On March 22, 1950, the court granted this petition and appointed the Real Estate Trust Company of Philadelphia guardiаn of Mrs. SigePs estate.
On April 10,1952, the guardian filed its first account together with a petition for a decree of confirmation аnd the awarding to the guardian, for further administration, of the balance shown thereby less the allowances requested. Excеptions were filed to the account, signed by Mrs. Sigel and her attorney, T. Henry Walnut, Esq. The guardian filed a motion to strike these exceptions, and on May 28, 1952 this motion was granted and a decree entered by Hon. Joseph L. Kun confirming the account and аuthorizing payment of the allowances set forth in the petition for confirmation, but no hearing was had and no testimony taken. Mr. Walnut, as attorney for Mrs. Sigel, filed exceptions to this action of the court which came before the court en bаnc on the argument list and were dismissed on June 20, 1952. The present appeal followed on September 19, 1952.
The guardian movеd to quash the appeal on the ground that the incompetent had no standing to file exceptions to the account and her counsel had no greater right than she had. In its brief it adds the additional reason that the order of the court granting its mоtion to strike the exceptions to the account was final and
Considering first the objection made to the timeliness of the appeal, the authorities are clear to the effect that, while there are many things in connection with the administration of justice that an individual judge may do and perform, there are others where a majority of the court (if the court consist of more than one judge) is required for final аction, and this is especially true where a power is conferred upon the court by statute: Carter’s Estate,
Here the incompetent and her attorney having filed exceptions to the account, the auditing judge’s action thereon was, in our opiniоn, properly reviewable by the court en banc; indeed the court en banc, without objection on the part of anyone, did hear argument on those exceptions. We conclude therefore that the present appeal, having been filed within three months of the court en banc’s final decree on June 20, 1952, was taken within sufficient time.
The Act of June 28, 1951, P. L. 612, art. YI, §603, рrovides that “The guardian shall give written notice of the filing of his account and of its call for audit or confirmation to the fоrmer ward if he has been declared competent, and otherwise to his succeeding guardian or personal representative, and to such other persons as the court by general rule or special order shall direct.”
The exceptions filed to the account, in addition to the one covering the matter thus mentioned, challenged expenses and fees claimed by psychiatrists and attorneys for servicеs rendered in connection with habeas corpus proceedings that Mrs. Sigel had instituted in order to obtain her release from her commitment to a hospital for mental and nervous diseases. She objected also to the disposal madе by the guardian of certain household furnishings belonging to her. It is true that a feeble-minded or weak-minded person is the ward of the сourt itself, and the guardian is simply the bailiff or agent of the court in protecting the ward and his estate (Gerlach’s Estate,
In a case where, as here, claims are brought to the attention of the court the merit of which cannot be determined from the face of the account itsеlf but require factual investigation, the court should appoint for the incompetent a guardian ad litem, who would thereby аcquire legal standing and authority to present testimony and to represent the interests of the incompetent at a hearing conducted by the court on the petition for confirmation of the account.
The motion to quash the appeal is overruled. The order and decree of May 28, 1952 and the dismissal of the exceptions thereto on June 20, 1952, are rеversed, and the record is remanded to the court below with direction to proceed as herein indicated.
Notes
Rule 951(a) of the Courts of Common Pleas of Philadelphia Comity provides that notice of the filing of accounts of guardians and other fiduciaries shall be served upon all parties interested, as therein provided.