
    #Respublica against James Bruce, administrator, [*361 with the will annexed of Nicholas Brosius, deceased.
    A collector of excise having settled with the comptroller general, which is approved of by the Supreme Executive Council, cannot be questioned by the commonwealth afterwards.
    This case was tried in Bank on the 8th March 1806, when a verdict was given for the commonwealth, for 1209 dollars and 88 cents, subject to the court’s opinion, whether the claim of the state was barred by the nth section of the act of 18th February 1785, 2 St. Laws 251, under the following circumstances.
    Brosius was collector of excise for the county of Berks, and settled his accounts finally with the comptroller and register general on the 18th May 1790, whereby a balance appeared to be due to him'of 135I. 19s. 5d. This account was afterwards approved of by the Supreme Executive Council on the 26th May 1790. No review or resettlement of this account was had within one year afterwards, but on the 7th December 1801, it was discovered, that the same sum had been twice credited, and a balance was struck as due from the estate of Brosius, of $1209.88 cents; frbm which last settlement, the defendant duly appealed. Bro-sius died early in June 1790.
    The case was submitted to the court without argument, by the attorney general, Mr. M'Kean, and by Mr. Ingersoll, for the defendant. They declared, that the principles established by the court in the case of the Commonwealth v. Rittenhouse’s executors in September term 1803, upon solemn argument, must govern the decision here.
   Per Cur.

There can be no doubt, but the commonwealth is barred by the express words of the act.

Judgment for the defendant.  