Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/40

28 FEDERAL REPORTER. �V. Hanison, 7 Cold. 213; Curd v. Bonner, 4 Cold. 632; Elrod v. Lan- casier, 2 Head, 571; Turney v. U'Mlams, 7 Yerg. 172; Burton v. Dickinson, 3 Yerg. 112. �Has the general rule oi equity jurisprudence, that a legatee or devises is entitled as a matter of course to an account against an executor on a bill filed for that purpose, been changed by the statute ? The jurisdiction does not depend upon the right of a court of equity to surcharge and falsify accounts between individuals for fraud or mistake, or to open settled and stated accounts on like grollnds of equitable relief, but attaches from other sources; that is to say, it has been acquired by the assumption on the part of courts of equity of jurisdiction over the assets of deceased persons, and the accounts when taken are mere incidents to the relief. Beyond this it has plenary jurisdiction over these matters which no other court has to administer the trusts of the will. Story, Eq. Jur. § 530 et seq; Tol- lei;, Ex'rs, 479, § 4. The jurisdiction of the ordinary to take an ac- count, under the English statutes in force at the time our federal courts were organized, was very much restricted, and out of these restrictions has grown the necessity for equitable relief. Toller, Ex'rs, 489, § 5. I cannot find that in administering this relief courts of equity paid any attention to settlements made in the eccle- siastical court, as such; indeed, I doubt if such settlements as are made in our probate courts under statutes eonferring upon them more or less extended jurisdiction, were known to any court at that time other than a court of equity. In case a legatee elected to go into the spiritual court the executor was obliged to exhibit an inventory and bring in an account. AU legatees and parties interested were cited to appear at the making of the account, for it was not conclusive on such as were absent and had not been cited. Id. 491, 495. After the ordinary had investigated the account, if true and perfect, he pro- nounced for its validity, and in case all parties interested had been cited such sentence was final, and the executor was subject to no fur- ther suit. Id. 495. But the jurisdiction of the ordinary was very limited, and the conclusive nature of the account so made before him applied only to matters within that jurisdiction. �Can this principle be applied to settlements made in our probate courts, so widely differing in their powers and jurisdiction in the sev- eral states, to limit and confine the remediai powers of a federal court of equity ? It seems to be settled by the Tennessee cases, above cited, that this statute was passed for the very purpose of iraposing such a limitation on the state courts. But the jurisdiction of the ��� �