Opinion of the Court. inal jurisdiction thereof." Section 6187 provides for the opening up of an account by any one adversely interested within eight months where the account has been settled in his absence and without actual notice to him. Also that upon every settlement of an account former accounts may be opened to correct mistake or error therein save where the dispute had been previously heard and determined. And finally, the provision specifically made for compensation for extraordinary services, section 6188, affecting commissions and allowances provides: "Executors and administrators may be allowed the following commissions upon the amount of the personal estate collected and accounted for by them, and of the proceeds of the real estate sold under an order of court for the payment of debts, or under directions of the will, which shall be received in full compensation for all their ordinary services," etc., *** "and in all cases such further allowance shall be made as the court shall consider just and reasonable for actual and necessary expenses, and for any extraordinary services not required in the common course of his duty," etc. We are unable to agree with counsel that proceedings which grow out of jurisdiction in rem cannot be rendered adversary except by express legislative act, but are of opinion that statutes affecting jurisdiction must be tested as to their proper meaning by the ordinary rules of construction. What, taking all the provisions together, and applying them to the subject-matter, did the general assembly mean by the language of the provisions as enacted? At the threshold we find that Opinion of the Court. the subject of the settlement of the accounts of administrators, etc., has been deemed of so much. importance as to call for a special constitutional provision. Why? Because the matter relates to the proper and lawful devolution of vast amounts. of property, and affects the rights and interests of a great many people, of widows, adult heirs, children, and creditors. To make this power effective there has been enacted, as the epitome hereinbefore given shows, laws specifically providing for its exercise, and surrounding it as we think, with safeguards intended to insure a fair hearing and due consideration of the rights of all parties interested. These various sections clearly imply that the specified compensation of the administrator is to be ascertained by the court when he shall have exhibited to the court by a settlement account the amount of the personal estate which he has collected and thus accounts for, and the amount of compensation for extraordinary services not required in the common course of his duty to be determined by the court on a showing to be made when the account is passed upon. This feature of the administrator's compensation relates to the settlement of his account as fully as any other and is just as essential to a full statement of his account with the estate as any other item in it. If the probate judge may properly allow a claim for extra services ex parte and in advance of settlement, no reason is apparent why he may not in like manner allow every other item which properly belongs in an account, and thus practically defeat the plain justice and purpose of the statute. But, beside this, when analyzed, the position of the Opinion of the Court. administrator is in essence and spirit adversary to the estate. He charges, as in this specific instance, the amount of the allowance to the estate. Then for the first time in the record of the probate court's doings does the matter of extraordinary compensation make its appearance, and the very statement itself is adversary. "The estate to the administrator, debtor," is the form used in the account. This attitude of the administrator is recognized by the provision for appeal by a trustee as given in section 6408. If the appeal is in the interest of the trust he may appeal without giving bond; if in his own interest he must give bond. Thomas, Adm.x., v. Moore, 52 Ohio St., 200; Layer, Guardian, v. Schaber, Admr., 57 Ohio St., 234; Biddle, Trustee, v. Phipps, 2 O. C. C., 61; Taylor v. McCullom, 5 W. L. B., 414; Kennedy v. Thompson, 3 O. C. C., 448. It cannot benefit the administrator that he has theretofore obtained the approval of that item at the hands of the probate judge, a practice which is not to be commended. The statute makes it clear that in general it is through the process of accounting that the probate court is given authority to allow extraordinary compensation, and the fact that the statute defines the conditions under which extraordinary compensation may be allowed implies that that is the proper way. In legal effect the item in dispute in the present case is part of the settlement account, is subjected to the same right of review, and must stand or fall on review the same as any other item excepted to. At the trial in the common pleas the item of extra allowance was like any other item of the Opinion of the Court. account excepted to. Its correctness as a charge was to be tried the same as though that court had had original jurisdiction of the case. The burden, therefore, was on the claimant to show that the services rendered by him were such as the law permits an extra allowance for, and to offer evidence to enable the court to properly fix the amount. He did neither. He was content to rest upon the action of the probate court. But, as we have held, that action was open to review and was then the very subject of review. It is not necessary to here consider the effect of an allowance to an administrator for extraordinary services made in a proceeding to sell land by order of court; nor a case where a written motion for allowance had been filed in the probate court and notice given to all interested parties, for we have no such case before us. It follows we think clearly that the attack in this case upon the action of the probate court was not a collateral, but a direct attack, and the court of common pleas was entirely justified in so treating it and in rendering judgment accordingly. Judgment affirmed. PRICE, C. J., SHAUCK, CREW, SUMMERS and DAVIS, JJ., concur. Statement of the Case. YEAGER ET AL. 7. TUNING ET AL. Erection of telephone line-By owner of one estate over estate of another-An easement, when-Parol agreement of adjoining land owners-For mutual telephone line-Easement by deed or prescription. 1. The right of an owner of an estate to erect and maintain, or to cause to be erected and maintained, a line of telephone poles over the estate of another for the benefit of the former is an easement. 2. An easement can be created only by deed or by prescription. 3. A parol agreement by several adjoining land owners to erect and maintain telephone poles on their respective lands, and to contribute equally to the expense of stringing wires thereon, and of operating a telephone line does not create an easement but is merely a parol license and is revocable by any one of such owners, although in reliance thereon the poles have been erected and the line constructed. (No. 10524-Decided December 1, 1908.) ERROR to the Circuit Court of Gallia county. The plaintiffs in error, Garret Yeager, J. W. Smith, William Davis, Jacob Miller, James Jones, H. H. Viars, C. C. Reese, J. G. Robertson and Mary E. Trichler, were plaintiffs in the court of common pleas, and the defendants in error, John P. Tuning, James J. Maddy, G. R. Viars, Clark Berry, A. L. Keeler, P. F. Hern and Phoebe Hern, were defendants in that court. It is averred in the petition, that the plaintiffs and the defendants mutually agreed, orally, to construct a telephone line over and across their respective lands and to their respective residences thereon to enable them to have telephonic communication with each other and with persons on other lines with which such |