
    Wm. Wallis and wife vs. Mary Gill adm'rx.
    
    The court of law will not hear appeals from the ordinary on matters involving the settlement of accounts.
    The object ofappeals to that court is to require the aid of the court in those cases, where according to the common law mode of administering justice, the parties could have the benefit of that jurisdiction.
    Where an appeal from the ordinary is of such a nature that it can be entertained by the court of law, new evidence may be offered.
    Tried before his honor judge Richardson, at York* Spring Term 1826.
    
      The question as to the value of certain advances made by the testator in his life time was before the ordinary, and from his decision of the value of the property, Mary Gill appealed to the court of common pleas, and offered to prove by attending witnesses that the advancements were worth nearly four hundred dollars more than that fixed by the ordinary.
    His honour rejected the testimony on the ground that no evidence, not offered before the ordinary, could be received there, but that the case must be tried upon the report of the ordinary. The jury found a verdict, conforming to the decree of the ordinary.
    The appellant now moved fora new trial on the ground.
    That his honour erred, in refusing to allow her to examine witnesses in open court, on the value of said advancements.
   Nott, J.

1 think the error of the judge in this case was in hearing the appeal at all. 1 am disposed however to think that where an appeal is of such a nature that it can be entertained in a court of law, the jury ought to hear the witnesses. But this court has always declined entertaining jurisdiction of cases involving the settlement of accounts of executors, administrators, and guardians, and of all persons acting in a fiduciary character. And although the legislature has given an appeal from the ordinary to the court of common pleas, it could not have been intended to transfer the settlement of accounts from that tribunal to a jury. The object must have been to require the aid of the court in those cases where according to the common law mode of administering justice, the parties could have the benefit of that jurisdiction.

Without such appeal the decree of the ordinary would be final and conclusive, in all matters both of law and fact where relief could not be had in the court of equity, a power which the legislature probably thought too great to trust to that officer without the supervising power of some superior court. But it was not intended to change the jurisdiction, and to draw from the court of equity in this indirect way. those cases in which the parties had an adequate remedy in that court.

Williams for the motion.

Mills contra.

This court is of opinion that the circuit coiirt had no jurisdiction of this case, if the ground of appeal is, that the decree of the ordinary is contrary to the evidence, that question could be tried only on the evidence before him. The, motion therefore must be refused.  