Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/43

 PDLLIAM V. PDIiLIAirf. 31 �on the jurisdiction oi the court. In England the defendant ■v^ould have been required to set up this account as a settled account, -cybere- upon the ehancellor would or 'woiild not, aecording to circumstances, t'eat it as such and se direct the master, who took no notice of it unless the decree so directed, and only so far as he was direoted. Where the decree gave it the force of a settled aecotmt, it waS usual to direct that it should stand prima 'facie conclusive, with liberty to the other party to show any error therein. 2 Daniell, Gh. Pr. (4th' Ed.) 1253. In Everstone v. Tappan, 5 Johns. Ch. 497, Chancellor Kent ordered an extrajudicidl account, takett where the parties had notice aud were present in a court without jurisdiction, to stand as a settled account, proving itself, except where error was shown. �Under the facts and circumstances of this case, I would not order this account to stand hefore the iuaster as a settled account, for the reason that it is not shown that the plaintiff had notice, which was always essential. But the old inode of taking aecounta before the master, by tediously proving every' item; bas been abrogated, and the sixty-first raie of the Bnglish chancery practice, adopted in 1828, requirestheaccoilnting party tO state his account in the form of debit and credit, which, being verified by the affidavit of the party, stands as a basis for the account, in which the other party must show error by proof before the master. 2 Daniell, Ch. Pr. 1222. The seventy- ninth equityruleof this court is aliuost an exact copyof the sixty-arst English rule. The defendant, by his deposition, has prOved his ac- count as stated in the county court to be correct, and under this rule of the court he could, without anyleave of the court, offerit before the master as his account, and it will be so treated now. �By this settlementit appears that there came into the hands of the oxecutor $26,590.02, which he has paid out. Of these disbursements he paid to his brother, the late Joel L. Pulliam, some $21,101.15, on 12 notes he held against his father, aggregating, without interest, $17,- G59. These notes, which are produeed in evidence, bear varions dates, from April 21, 1856, to June 2, 18G2. The defendants also produce three papers which are called settlements, all in the handwriting of the said Joel L. Pulliam, which it is proved were among the papers of his father. They are dated April 21, 1856, November 18, 1859, and January 1,1863, and are informai -statements of indebtedness, with calculations of interest and credits referring to these notes, and ehowing how the amounts of the notes are arrived at. �It is alleged in the bill that these notes, or some of them, were jaid during the life-time of the father, and that they, with these ��� �