
    TURNER and WIFE vs. KEY’S ADM’R.
    [VINAIj SETTLEMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OE DECEDENT’S ESTATE.]
    1. Bill of exceptions necessary. — An appeal from tbe decree of the probate court, rendered on tbe final settlement and distribution of a decedent’s estate, is required (Code, § 1891) to be tried on bill of exceptions ; and where the record contains no bill of exceptions, tbe appeal will be dismissed.
    Appeal from the Probate Court of Russell.
    In the matter of the final settlement and distribution of the estate of Madison T. Key, deceased. The errors assigned question the correctness of the rulings of the probate court in refusing to allow to the decedent’s widow, now the wife of George W. Turner, a distributive share of said estate, on the ground that she had a separate estate.
    A. Eiland, and Jas. E. Belseb, for the appellant.
    Benj. H. BaKER, contra.
    
   RICE, C. J.

— The constitution of this State (Art. V. § 2) declares, that this court shall have appellate jurisdiction, “ under such restrictions and regulations, not repugnant to this constitution, as may, from time to time, be prescribed by law.” The appeal in this case was taken under section 1888 of tbe Code. It is one of tbe appeals which, according to section 1891 of tbe Code, “ must be tried” in tbe appellate court on a bill of exceptions. The plain meaning of the section last cited is, that where there is no bill of exceptions, an appeal like this cannot be tried by tbe appellate court. To that restriction, or regulation, we are bound to conform ; and as there is no bill of exceptions in this case, the appeal must be dismissed, at the costs of appellants.  