
    Paul Hendricks vs. John Huddleston.
    The judgments and orders of the probate court are final, and cannot be set aside or annulled by that court, at a term subsequent to that at which they' were made.
    P. H., who became guardian of J. H. in 1834, was, on his petition, in 1843, discharged from his guardianship, (his ward being of full age,) and his accounts and vouchers received and allowed; at a subsequent term of the court to that at which he was discharged, J. H. filed a petition, alleging that mistakes existed in P. H.’s accounts, and prayed that the final settlement might be set aside, and the errors corrected; held, that the application and petition of J. Hi were properly refused.
    A guardian is not chargeable with interest for money in his hands, unless he has consented to take the money at interest, or unless it has been loaned out at interest under the direction of the court.
    On appeal from the probate court of Lowndes county ; Hon. Thotnas Sampson, judge.
    On the 5th of March, 1834, John Huddleston was appointed guardian of Paul Hendricks, by the probate court of Warren county. He proceeded in the discharge of his duties as guardian, applied for sale, and sold the land and negroes of his ward, accounted annually with the court, showing, from time to time, various balances against him; and on the 2d of May, 1843, his ward having become of full age, he made a final settlement with the probate court, and furnished the court with the receipt of his ward for the final balance due by him, when he was discharged from his guardianship by the court.
    At the August term, 1843, of the court, Hendricks filed his petition, praying the court to set aside the final settlement of Huddleston, because of an alleged error in his accounts, and because he did not- charge himself with interest on the notes for which he sold his ward’s property, interest having accrued on those notes, and credit being only given for their face; and also because he did not charge himself with the interest for the money he had on hand.
    
      The judge refused the prayer of the petition, and dismissed it; when Hendricks prayed and prosecuted this appeal.
    The following errors were assigned :
    1. In denying the prayer of the petition, and dismissing the same.
    2. In deciding that a guardian is not liable for interest on money belonging to his ward, and retained from year to year in his hands, although there may be no order of court authorizing the same without proof, that said guardian used the same.
    3. That John Huddleston, as guardian, was not liable for interest on notes received by him, as guardian for property of his ward’s, sold on credit, and paid by the makers thereof after maturity, without proof that said guardian received interest.
    4. That a guardian may deduct the expenses of his ward from the principal of his estate, although there may be no order of court authorizing the same when there is no evidence that interest or profits have been received.
    
      Boykin and Crusoe, for appellant.
    1st error assigned is, that court erred in denying prayer of petition.
    The petition charges fraud in the account presented by John Huddleston, as guardian, for final settlement, besides assigning various errors in the samé, alleging that the errors had been discovered by petitioner after the account had been presented. Under these circumstances it was the duty of the court to examine into said account, according to the prayer of the petition, and examine whether, in fact, there was error or fraud in the same. The probate court having exclusive jurisdiction over the accounts between guardian and ward, if the right to examine or correct errors in accounts presented by guardian after ward has become of age," has been denied, and this more especially when fraud in said accounts are charged, and when it neither appears of record nor by proof that any notice was given that said guardian would present his account for final settlement, it is difficult to imagine the injurious consequences which must necessarily result, from such proceedings, to minors. But in this case the court,-not satisfied with denying a minor this right, passes upon and gives his opinion upon the questions of error and law presented by the petition; thus whilst denying the right, virtually and expressly deciding the questions of error presented by the petition, as will be seen from the bill of exceptions taken.
    
      2d assignment of error. In deciding that a guardian is not liable for interest on money belonging to his ward, and retained from year to year in his hands, although there may be no order of court authorizing the same, without proof that said guardian used the same.
    By reference to the record it will be seen, that, notwithstanding the profits of the estate whilst in guardian’s hands, in specie, was more than sufficient to defray all the expenses incurred by the ward, yet, upon the petition of the guardian, the whole of the ward’s estate was disposed of and turned into money, and received by the guardian; the guardian thus retaining in his hands, from year to year, large amounts of money, there being no order of court authorizing the same. That a guardian is not liable for interest on balance of profits, after deducting expenditures, according to the statute, How. & Hutch, p. 338, sec. 11, is admitted; but surely that statute could never be so construed, as to permit a guardian, from year to year, 'to retain the whole of the estate of ward in his hands, after having turned it into cash, without everreturning the same to court, or paying interest on the same; nor was it thought necessary to prove that the guardian used the same, for it was his duty to return the same into court; and in the absence of his doing so, the law will hold him responsible .for interest, whether he used the money or not. Armstrong v. Miller, 6 Ohio R. 124.- '
    3d assignment. That Huddleston, as guardian, was not liable for interest on notes received.by him, a,s guardian for. property of his ward’s, sold on credit, and paid for by makers long after maturity, without proof that said guardian received interest.
    By reference to reports, it will be seen that the money was received after maturity of notes, and nowhere does Huddleston report any indebtedness after the receipt of the principal from 
      the makers. Under these circumstances the law would presume that the guardian received the amount due; and the fact of the guardian not returning any balance due, would absolve Hendricks from proving a negative, whether he received it or not; not having returned any indebtedness from the makers, he is bound for it.
    4th assignment. That a guardian may deduct the expenses of his ward from the principal of his estate, although there may be no order of court authorizing the same, when there is no evidence that interest has been received.
    The statute H. & H. p. 38S, sec. 11, provides that the account of- the guardian shall state the expenditures of the ward, not exceeding the income of the estate, unless allowed by the court. See also 6 Randolph, 444; Myers et al. v. Wade et al. 2 McCord C. R. 56. Amount must be settled by court, 1 How. 53. When sanction of court has not been obtained, expenditures disallowed, so far as they exceed profits. 6 Rand. 444; Broaders v. Hooper, 3 Leigh, 12..
    
      W. Yerger, for appellee.
    The petition to set aside the order, allowing the final report in this case, proceeds upon the idea that it is only a stated account. This view of the casé is very erroneous, as this court has repeatedly adjudicated; that the orders of the probate court, allowing final settlements of executors and guardians, are not mere stated accounts, but judgments of courts of full jurisdiction, and not examinable into, or liable to be impeached in an original proceeding for any error or mistake in them, but only' for fraud ; and that, if a party is aggrieved by them, his only remedy is by appeal. 1 How. R. 450; 5 Ibid. 739; 11 Serg. & Rawle, 422 ; 7 Pick. R. 1.
    This view of the case is conclusive of the question, and will save any inquiry into the propriety of the original order allowing the account. But even upon examining that account by the strictest rules, it is correct, and the court was right in dismissing the petition to set aside the order allowing it. The supposed errors pointed out in the petition are as follow, to wit:
    
      1. No interest is charged against the guardian. By our statute he was not chargeable with interest, unless directed to loan but the money, which was not done. How. & Hutch. 538.
    2. It is alleged that the court should have charged Huddle-ston with interest on notes which were payable to him as guardian, and which were paid to him after maturity; though it is not shown that he received any interest. This the court will not do; the court will not charge him with money he never received. It is said, in the third place,
    3. The court ought not to have allowed him payments made for the maintenance of the ward, above the interest of his estate. Our statute is, that the guardian shall- state his expenditures in maintaining the ward, not exceeding the income of the estate, “ unless allowed by the court,” &c. In this case there was no income to the estate; the ward’s property was in money. This the guardian was not bound to loan out, and, consequently, the expenditures were, of necessity, to be paid out of the principal; besides these annual accounts were allowed by the court, which justified the course taken 'by the guardian. How. & Hutch. 338.
   Pee. Curiam.

In 1834 Huddleston was appointed guardian of Hendricks by the probate court of Lowndes county. He proceeded in the discharge of his duty, and exhibited his accounts of receipts and disbursements, up to May term, 1843, when he presented his final account, his ward being -then of full age. In this account is stated the several balances appearing in the previous accounts, and receipts of the ward were-exhibited to the full amount which had come to the hands of the guardian, or at least to the amounts reported, and Huddleston, on his application, was discharged. At August term, 1844, Hendricks presented his petition to the probate court, in which he avers inaccuracies in the accounts, and prays that the final settlement may be set aside, and the errors corrected. The prayer of the petitioner was refused, and thereupon he appealed. The petitioner states, that when the final account was passed, he was not familiar with accounts, and not having examined the same, presumed it to be correct. The record does not show that the petitioner was present in court at the final settlement, but the confession here made is equivalent to an admission that he was so present. The party then had his day in court, and an opportunity to contest the account, and to his appeal if the court decided incorrectly. We have so repeatedly held that the judgments and orders of the probate court are final, that it is now too late to raise such a question. 5 How. 739; 1 How. 450; 1 S. & M. 510. It was useless to confer on that court the power to adjudicate, if its adjudications could be set aside for such causes as are set out in this petition. But if there was no doubt as to the power, still the petition shows no merits to justify the opening of the decree. One objection to the report is, that the guardian sold property on a credit, and failed to charge himself with the interest which accrued on the claims before payment; but there is no showing that he received any. The main ground relied on is, that the guardian did not allow interest foi¡ the money in his hands. By law a guardian is not chargeableVwith interest, unless he has consented to take the money at interest; or unless it has been loaned out at interest, under the direction of the court. H. & H. Dig. 338, sec. 11.

The judgment must be affirmed.  