
    E. Lyles, ordinary, vs. Anna Brown, administratrix of Geo. Brown.
    
      In a suit upon an Administration Bond, against the sureties of aft Administrator, the- Court will not look into the grounds or regularity of the proceedings, upon which the ordinary founded a decree of a sum of money due by the Administrator.
    
    This was an action brought on an Administration Bond,, given by Sarah Humphries, Administratrix of T. Humphries, with George Brown and another, sureties. The defendants are the administrators of George Brown, deceased. They pleaded performance; also, that the administration to Sarah Humphries, bad been revoked and new administration granted to Thomas Humphries. _
    It appeared in evidence, that the defendants had been cited to account before the ordinary, for the actings and doings of the Administratrix, S. -Humphries, and the ordinary made his de-cretal order against the Administratrix, on their default. It did not appear in evidence, that Sarah Humphries had. been cited, and no .satisfactory account could be given whether she was dead or. removed from the district, at the time of the trial. It also appeared that Thomas Humphries, some time after the . Administration had been granted to Sarah Humphries, gave bond and security to the ordinary, to administer the same estate; and the ordinary founded his decree on a receipt for money, given by Sarah Humphries to Thomas Humphries, Administra? ter of Charles Humphries, deceased.
    The Jmy> under tbe. direction of die Court, found a ver*-diet for the plaintiff, to the amount of the ordinary’s decree, and interest from the date thereof.-
    The defendants now moved the Court for a non suit, which was refused in the Court below.
    Because, the administratrix, Sarah Humphries, was not in any way cited to appear before the ordinary to account, before the commencement of this suit.
    And if this motion should fail, then for a new trial;
    Because, it appeared from the records in the ordinary’s office, that the receipt on which the decree of the ordinary was predicated, had been given by Sarah Humphries to Thomas-Humphrics, Administrator of Charles Humphries, and that she received the money in her personal and not in her representative character.
   The opinion of the Court toas delivered by

Mr. Justice Richardson.

The essential facts in this case are, that the defendants, be* Ing the administrators of George Brown, who had been the surety of Sarah Humphries, (the administratrix) having been cited before the ordinary, to give an account of her administration, the judge, after a judicial hearing, decreed the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars to he due by the said Sarah Humphries.

And the ti-ue question is, whether the Circuit Court ought to have regarded the charge of irregularity in the proceedings before the ordinary, or that of the want of sufficient evidence before him, as matter to invalidate the decree.

It is not pretended that the ordinary went beyond his jurist diction; and we are not at liberty to enquire into the justice o? injustice of the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction; at least, when introduced collaterally, or as evidence. Such judgments being final and conclusive between the parties, can be revived only by direct appeal, or writ of error.. Any other' .rule would indeed be productive of endless uncertainty, and: render the judgment of a court, instead of the end,, the mere b.e-*‘ ginning of litigation. Stark, vs. Woodward, 1 Nott & M'Cord, 329; and Brown, vs. Gibson, 326; 11th State Tri. 261. In addition to a principle so well established, this court-,has. decided, in the case of the ordinary, vs. Williams and Parkman, 1 Nott & M‘Cord, 587, that before the principal 'or surcfiés can be. ■sued in an administration bond, they must first have been cited before the ordinary, and his decree made. Now, for what purpose is this preliminary suit before the ordinary required, if not to settle the amount due by the administrator? But to send the parties there, in order to account, and then' to investigate the same subject here, would render that decision absurd, and would introduce indirectly, the practice of calling administrators to account in this court; to avoid which, and to keep them, as well as executors, before the proper tribunal, was the very object of that decision.

There is therefore, no ground for either motion, and the decree of the ordinary having been acquiesced in at the time, is conclusive, and both motions are-dismissed.

Huger, Johnson, Mott, Colcock, Justices concurred.  