Opinion by
When David L. Ward died on November 12,1913, he bequeathed to Anna Ward, his widow, $50,000.00 in trust, to invest the same and pay over the net income to his dаughter Josephine while her mother lived. The mother was appointed trustee. Upon the death of Anna Ward, the princiрal was bequeathed to Josephine, absolutely. Ón June 24,1915, after Josephine became of age, she signed an instrument in whiсh she ratified and confirmed the setting aside of certain non legal investments to be held in trust for her under her father’s will and requestеd that her mother, as trustee, continue the investments in these non legal securities. The record discloses that the mother, аs trustee, distributed all of the income to Josephine. The trustee filed no account during her lifetime. On November 10, 1942, the mother-trustee died and Milton S. Leidner was appointed guardian for Josephine, who had been declared weak-minded by the Court of Common Pleas No. 7 of Philadelphia County, as of December Term, 1942. After the administrator c. t. a. of the estate of Anna Alexander [Ward], deceased, had filed the account of Anna Alexander [Ward] as trustee for Josephine, the guardian tоok exceptions to the account, claiming the accounting inadequate in that it failed to disclose the datе when the se *146 curities were received by tbe trustee and how acquired, that tbe accountant failed to disclose as a charge tbe principal sum originally awarded to tbe deceased trustee, and tbe investments were held in non legal securities. While these exceptions were pending, tbe guardian and accountant agreed to compromisе tbe controversy provided tbe Court of Common Pleas No. 7 of Philadelphia County approved tbe arrangement and advised tbe auditing judge thereof. Before any action was taken by that court tbe auditing judge modified tbe decree by allowing commissions and then dismissed tbe guardian’s exceptions, stating in tbe decree: “There is, however, no reason for bolding this adjudication pending that event because this adjudication can be made, and it is made by tbe direction that tbe Accountаnt here shall withhold tbe sum of One Thousand Dollars (|1,000.) from funds in bis bands to be paid to Milton S. Leidner, Guardian of tbe said Ward, at any time a proper acquittance is given by tbe Exceptants for said sum.” After this decree, tbe present intervenor, tbe son of tbe weak-minded Josephine, appeared and took this appeal.
An examination of this case on its merits disclosed that tbe daughter Josephine, after she came of age and while still of sound mind, signed an instrument requesting her trustee to continue hеr beneficial estate in non legal investments. “Where the sole beneficiary requests in writing that a conversion of proрerty should be postponed until further notice by her, tbe executor is legally justified in acceding to her wishes”:
Stephen’s Estate,
The other substantive question raised by the appellant is that the trustee’s commissions and counsel fees should not be allowed because, it is alleged by the appellant, the trustee mingled the trust funds with her own moneys, kept no record of income and disbursements, and neglected for thirty years to file an account. The question as stated by the appellant is not supported by the record. There is no evidence of a commingling of the trust funds. The funds of the trust were invested in securities and kept in a separate safety deposit box in the name of the dеceased as trustee under the will of David L. Ward. The learned auditing judge found the account “sufficiently informative to enablе the Guardian of the said Josephine Ward Beale to discover that of which the estate consists”, and an examination of the account will confirm this finding. The securities in which the estate was invested are traced from the time the trust was created up until the accounting, and the record discloses the mother-trustee paid for the benefit of Josephine all оf the income produced by the trust and that she had spent on Josephine “a sum far in excess of the income which this estаte yielded to her.” It was pointed out in the adjudication, “While it is true that the legislation makes a mother-parent liable tо a state institution for the maintenance of her child, in this instance the child was not in a state institution and for considerable рart of the time was the wife of a man whom she had married many years before her mother died.” On July 2, 1943, the administrator c. t. a. of thе deceased trustee filed an income account to which no exception was taken. In view of the beneficiary’s approval of the investments and the clear evidence that there was no mismanagement, imprudent action, or fraud, shown in the handling of the funds of the trust by the mother-trustee, and the findings and conclusions of the court below negativing the implication of such conduct, they are conclusive
*148
upon this court:
Snyder Estate,
The court below allowed commissions to the trustee. The trustee was faithful and honest in the administration of her trust, derived no personal benefits therefrom, and was authorized by the beneficiary to сarry the estate in non legal securities. It was proper, under these circumstances, to allow the trustee commissiоns (see
Quinn’s Estate,
As this case is рroperly disposed of by the foregoing conclusions, it is unnecessary for us to consider any of the other questions raised on this appeal.
Judgment affirmed; costs to be paid by the appellant.