Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/41

 PULLUM V. PULLIAM. 29 �federal equity courts cannot be thus controlled by state legislation. lu Mallett V. Dexter, 1 Curtis, 178, Mr. Justice Curtis treated such a settlement conclusive, on the ground that the state court having first acquired jurisdiction, its adjudication was final and precluded the concurrent jurisdiction of the federal court ; and the same doctrine was followed in Haines v. Carpenter, 1 Woods, 262. In the latter case it is said that the administration of the estate cannot be, by such a bill, transferred to the federal court, but that its jurisdiction is complete by a full account to ascertain at the suit of a distributee just what his share is. In Lupton y. Janney, 13 Pet. 381, Mr. Jus- tice Story says that such settlements, even when made ex parte, are prima facie, and can only be opened on a bill to surcharge and falsify ; but he especially declines to decide whether the jurisdiction of the orphans' court was exclusive, and takes care to place his judgment wholly on the ground of lapse of time as a bar. In Barney v. Saun- ders, 16 How. 535, it was held that settlements in the orphans' court could not be collaterally attacked, although the trusts under the same will were inquired into. It seems there were two executors ; one became administrator de bonis non, with the will annexed, and col- lected assets, which he turned over to himself and the co-executor as trustees. The court seems to treat the jurisdiction of the orphans' court over the administration account as conclusive, and its settle- ment final. In Beatty v. Maryland, 7 Cranch, 281, such a settlemeiit was held not to be evidence, either prima facie or otherwise, in a suit at law on the administration bond upon an issue of devastavit. Whatever may befound in any of these cases to support the argu- ment that this statute is binding on this court to the extent that the settlement in the oounty court should be treated as an adjudication in favor of the executer that his disbursements have been proper and his administration lawful, is modified by subsequent cases. It has been repeatedly held that the federal jurisdiction cannot be impaired by the laws of the states which prescribe the modes of redress in their courts. If legal remedies are sometimes modified to suit the changes in the laws of the states and the practice of their courts, it is not so with equitable. The equity jurisdiction conferred on the federal courts is the same that the high court of chancery in Eng- land possesses, is subject to neither limitation nor restriction by state legislation, and is uniform throughout the different states of the Union. Nor are we confined to the rules of relief prescribed for the equity courts of the state. It is no more competent for this stat- ute to say to this court that the action of the county court shall be ��� �