
    Curtis, Appellant, versus Bailey.
    Where a guardian was removed, and neglected to settle his account in the probate court, it was held, that an administrator of one of his sureties might settle such account. The statute does not require it to be settled on the oath of the guardian.
    Joshua Stetson, guardian of a person non compos mentis, had been removed by the judge of probate of the county of Plymouth, and the appellant appointed guardian in his place. Stetson was cited to settle his account in the probate court, but did not appear ; apd the appellee, as administrator on the estate of Charles Bailey, one of the sureties in Stetson’s probate bond, exhibited, without the knowledge of Stetson, an account of the guardianship, which the judge of probate decreed should be allowed. Curtis appealed from this decree, and assigned, as one reason of the appeal, that the judge of probate had no right to act upon such an account so presented.
    
      W. Baylies, for the appellant.
    By St. 1783, c. 38, § 5, it is provided, that a guardian shall give bond for the rendering a just and true account of his guardianship when and so often as he shall be required. The guardian should settle the account himself, and upon his oath ; but, in the • present case, it does not appear that Stetson so much as authorized the exhibiting of this account, nor that any oath was taken even by the appellee.
    
      Beal, for the appellee.
   Per Curiam.

The Court are of opinion, that’the judge of probate was correct in admitting the appellee to exhibit the account. It may happen, that other persons must necessarily take the place of a guardian in settling an account; for instance, where a guardian dies. It does not appear, by the statute, that it must be settled upon the oath of the guardian. The judge of probate might have sworn the appellee. 
      
       See Baylies v. Davis, post, 206.
     