
    In the Matter of the Estate of George Engs, Deceased.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department
    
    
      Filed July 18, 1890.)
    
    Executors and administrators — Compromise—Accounting.
    An accounting by executors will not be opened to allow an heir to litigate a compromise and settlement made by the executors with the assent of such heir and the surrogate, in the absence of proof of fraud, collusion or misrepresentation inducing such settlement.
    Appeal from decree of surrogate denying application of the widow of George Engs to open the accounts of the executors. -
    By the will of testator Samuel F. Engs and two others were appointed executors and all qualified. Samuel F. Engs was his brother and survivor in a partnership existing between them. Thereafter a written offer was made by said partner for a purchase of testator’s interest in the business, which was submitted to the widow, and two months thereafter it was accepted and a settlement made on that basis, with her assent and that of the surrogate. The offer stated the interest of deceased at the amount shown on the books, made a deduction for shrinkage on account of winding up the business, and the balance remaining was paid.
    The widow claims that she was induced to accept the statement as final by the facts that an examination of the books was denied to her, that litigation was threatened and she was advised to accept by one of the executors, who was her legal adviser, and that the amount stated in the books is the actual and not the nominal value of the interest of deceased.
    
      Edward B. Merrill and Henry D. Holchhiss, for app’lt; Arthur-Hurst, for ex’rs, resp’ts; Lewis Hurst, for ex’rs of S. F. Hurst.
   Dykman, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the surrogate of Kings county denying an application of Kate S. Engs, the widow of the deceased, to open the accounts of the deceased to enable her to dispute and litigate the settlement made by the executors of her husband with his former partner.

Such settlement was made after full deliberation, with the assent of the petitioner and the surrogate, and no fraud or collusion or misrepresentation is shown which induced such settlement.

There is no merit in the appeal and the order should be affirmed, with costs.

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.  