
    JOHN JAMES & AL. vs. TANDY MATTHEWS & AL.
    Where a settlement was made between the legatees and the executor, in which settlement no interest was computed and the legatees received the principal, they caunot afterwards be allowed to rectify the settlement as to the interest, unless they shew that the interest was omitted in the settlement, either through mistake or accident, or fraud and imposition— ospecially after the lapse of several years.
    The cases of Bird v. Graham, 1 Ire. Eq. 198, and Compton v. Green, 2 Dev. Eq. 96, cited and approved.
    Petition in this Court to rehear an interlocutory order.
    James Matthews, by his last will, devised as follows : “ Also, I will at my death, that all my moveable property shall be sold and the monej' arising from .such sale shall, after' the payment of all my lawful debts, be divided between Tandy Mattheivs, Betsy James, and John Matthews, but what share shall be coming to Betsy James, shall be paid to her children when of age.” There is a similar bequest of all the money due him. The plaintiffs are the children of Betsy J ames, and all of them, as they arrived of age, received, as they state in the bill, the pi’incipal of the money due them from Tandy Matthews, who was the acting executor; and that he x*efused to pay them any intei-est. The bill is to recover the interest.
    The defendant alleges, that he has settled with, and paid over to the plaintiffs their x-espective shares ; some of them more than twenty years ago, and during all the long time, he was making his different settlements, no dissatisfaction was expressed, at his not paying interest, nor was any claim for interest set up, and he relies upon the lapso of time, and the settlements, as a bar to an account.
    The case was set for hearing on the bill, and answer, and an account was decreed, iby the -presiding Judge, in the Court below, as to the interest. The cause was then brought here, and a petition is filed to re-hear that interlocutory decree.
    
      Kerr, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Morehead, for the defendants.
   Nash, J.

Lapse of time is, in itself, no bar to the demand of an account, by next of kin, against an administrator ; but it may raise a presumption, that an account has been rendered, and satisfaction made, or the claim to satisfaction abandoned, and the farthest this Court has gone in raising such presumption* is. the intervention of twenty years, between the time-when the settlement ought to have been made, and the filing of the bill. Bird v. Graham and others, 1 Ire. Eq. 198. In this case it is admitted, that a settlement has taken place, and the principal paid. Twenty years, however, have not, as far as we can see, passed since the ’time when the legacies were payable. The answer . states,, that the payments were made to some, more than twenty, but which of them he does not state, and it -vitas • -to be paid as they arrived at age, and those, respective periods have not been set forth by either party.. The bill .does not seek to set aside the settlement generally; but that it may be rectified, as to the matter of .interest.’ To entitle themselves to the relief they seek,' tlie- plaintiffs must show, that the interest was omitted .in the settlement, either through mistake, or accident, or fraud and imposition. None of these reasons exist in this’case, because the plaintiffs show they knew their rights,'and all the facts. and were perfectly aware of the omission to allow interest. Compton v. Green, 2 Dev. Eq. 96. They state, that at the settlement, “ the defendant paid them a part of their respective legacies, alleging that, that was the full amount of the principal money, for division, and refused to account for any .interest whateverWith this knowledge before them, and without any allegation of fraud, accident, or mistake, or any reason shown why he did so settle, they cannot be permitted now, after receiving the principal as all that was due to them, and after the length of time that has, elapsed, to come into Court, and ask an account of the interest, which was but an incident, at best, to the principal demand. We consider them concluded by-the settlements made.

The interlocutory order was erroneously made, and must be reversed, and the bill dismissed with costs.

Per Cm;lias.

Decree accordingly.  