Case Name: William Y. Gadberry v. James Perry et ux.
Court: High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1854-04
Citations: 27 Miss. 114
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Y. Gadberry v. James Perry et ux.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 114–119

Head Matter:
William Y. Gadberry v. James Perry et ux.
The statute of 1846 (Hutch. Co. 728, § 3) confers upon the probate courts power to entertain bills of review according to the rules prevailing in courts of chancery, and also authorizes the probate courts to entertain proceedings to surcharge and falsify an account, and to extend that power to the final settlements of executors, guardians, &c.; provided proceedings are com- ' menced within two years from the date of such settlements.
On appeal from the probate court of Yazoo county; Hon. Geo. B. Wilkinson, probate judge of Yazoo county.
The appellees filed a bill of review in the probate court of Yazoo county, surcharging and falsifying the interlocutory and final settlements of appellant, (Gadberry,) as guardian of Mrs. Perry, while a minor; it points out many improper items in his allowance, and shows that during the whole time of his guardianship he obtained but one order allowing him to exceed the income, but that he had so managed as to consume not only the income but the capital, and on final settlement brought her in debt; it prays that his accounts be reviewed and corrected, and that the guardian be charged with the whole amount received by him, less the $150 authorized by the probate court; but if this cannot be done, then that the numerous errors specified in the bill be corrected, and appropriate charges made.
Defendant demurred to the bill, assigning for cause: —
1. The bill sets up no new matter arisen since date of decree.
2. No discovery of new proof not known at final settlement.
3. No fraud in obtaining the decree, or any other ground shown for setting it aside.
The court overruled the demurrer, and Gadberry appealed to this court.
Gibbs and Bowman for appellants.
The appellants demurred to bill, and the demurrer was overruled, which is the error complained of. If this bill would be demurrable in a court of equity, by the terms of the act it was demurrable in the probate court. It is certainly faulty in every essential particular, and would not be entertained by any chancellor. The requisites of a bill of review are few and well defined. A bill of review can only lie for error in law, apparent on the decree itself, or for new matter which has arisen since the decree was enrolled, or discovery of new proof which could not be used at the hearing. Story, Eq. PI. § 404, 412, 413, 414; 3 Johns. R. 124; 3 Plow. 276; lb. 377.
The legislature, by the act of 1846, (Hutch. Co. 728,) did not intend-to subject a party not bound by law to answer to go beyond the first judgment or decree, which might be full defence.' It would be very oppressive upon defendants if they could not test the judgment on demurrer until they had been annoyed and harassed with a long, tedious, and ill-natured suit. The correction in the high court of the judgment on demurrer, by the court below, would be of no service then. Suppose upon the face of a bill of review it should be apparent that complainant was barred by the statute of limitations, and there should be a demurrer which would raise the question of the statute of limitations, and the demurrer should be overruled, — would defendant, notwithstanding, be compelled to litigate the whole case through, before he could appeal and have the protection the law,has given him? We beg to assure the court we should not say one word upon this question, did we not regard this case as essentially different from the case of Prewett v. Grump, 1 Cushm., as we would not argue upon a principle directly settled by the court.
N. G. and S. E. Nye for appellees.
The act of March 6, 1846, (Hutch. Co. 728,) which gives the bill of review in the probate court, appears to have been passed for the express purpose of meeting emergencies of this kind. The language is: “ Any person interested may, at any time within two years after final settlement, by bill of review, open the account of any executor, administrator, or guardian, and surcharge and falsify the same.” From this, we think our construction is certainly the correct one, unless the word “ account” means “decree,” which cannot be contended.
We think that, from the decision of this court in the case of Austin v. Laman, 23 Miss. R. 192, the guardian is certainly chargeable with the full amount received by him, less the $150, for which he had an order of the court.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Handy
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a petition filed in the probate court of Yazoo county, by the appellees, to surcharge and falsify the final account of the appellant as guardian of the appellee Mary Perry, a minor. The petition was filed within two years after the settlement was made, and sets forth various errors and false charges in the account, Avhich are sought to be corrected and falsified. The appellant demurred to the petition on the ground, 1st, that no new matter, arisen since the final settlement, nor new proof discovered, is shoAvn; 2d, that no fraud or other sufficient ground for setting aside the statement is shown by the petition. The demurrer was overruled, and this appeal taken.
It is insisted, in behalf of the appellant, that the act of 1846, Plutch. Dig. 728, § 3, under which this proceeding was taken, does not authorize the review of a final settlement in the probate court, except ill cases of error apparent in the account itself, or new facts, or facts discovered since the settlement was made; and that such a review can only be had upon a similar state of case to that in which a bill of review would be entertained by a court of chancery.
The act referred to, in the first place, gives to the probate courts power to entertain bills of review generally, "in the same manner and according to the same rules as the same are entertained by courts of equity." It further provides, that " in proceedings for the final settlement of any executor, administrator, or guardian, any person interested may, by bill of review, open and cause to be examined by the court, any annual or partial settlement, &c., and surcharge and falsify the accounts rendered upon such annual or partial settlement; and any person interested may, at any time within two years after final settlement, by bill of review, open the account of any executor, administrator, or guardian, and surcharge and falsify the same," &c.
It appears to be clear from the provisions of this act, not only that the power to entertain bills of review, according to rules prevailing in a court of equity, was intended to be conferred on the probate courts, but also that that power should be exercised in all cases in which it would be competent for a court of chancery to entertain proceedings to surcharge and falsify an account, and to extend that power to the final settlements of executors, &c. These two subjects of chancery jurisdiction seem to be combined in one proceeding, by which the settlements of executors, guardians, &c. may be reviewed and surcharged and falsified within two years from the date of such settlements.
Tested by the rules applicable to surcharging and falsifying accounts, we think this petition sufficient on that ground, and that the demurrer was properly overruled.
The decree is affirmed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.