Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/552

 M'dERMOTT V. COPELAND. 537 �$118,749.50 was paid over to the executors; but that $39,237.66 was never paid over to thein, and they have never aecounted for the same. The bill fur- ther alieged that defendants flled their final account, and on the seventeenth day of Det-ember were discharged by the probate court, and an order was enterod that the distributees entitled to said last-mentioned amount should look to Mr. Mills for it ; that in carrying out their trust the executors have proved unfaithf ul in failing to collect this amount, and also in paying them- selves $5,000 compensation, in addition to the legacies given them. Certain other charges weremadeagainst the defendants, which were abandoned at the hearing. TJie answer denied that the interest of Nevin in the partnership was sold to said Mills, but averred that the interest of the estate in the merchan- dise, flxtures, and machinery was sold for $27,897.21, all of which was ae- counted for; that the executors flled their flnal account, and petitioned for discharge, and were discharged on the seventeenth day of December, 1878. The answer further denied the entry of an order that the heirs should look to Mills for their respective shares of the $39,000, and averred that an order was entered for the distribution of the remainder of the estate, which consisted of property belonging to the partnership, all of which property was in the pos- session of and under the control of Mills, as surviving partner, and consisted mainly of claims owing for merchandise. It admitted the charge of $5,000 for services, and averred the same was allowed for defending the will of said Nevin, (a long contest,) and insisted the allowance was proper, and was approved by the probate court. �Alfred Russell, for complainants. �G. V. N. Lothrop, for defendants. �BncfWN, D. J. This case was once argued upon a demurrer to the bill, which was overruled pro forma, in order that the point at issue might be more fully presented upon bill and answer. The question' involved, is, in substance, whether executors, who have filed their final account in the probate court and have received their discharge, without fraud or collusion, can be compelled, notwithstanding this decree, to account to the next of kin for personal property which they never have reduced to their possession, and which was set offby the probate court directly to the complainants. Beyond all controversy, the judgment or decree of a state court, rendered in a case of which it had complete jurisdiction, cannot be revised or set aside by a col- lateral proceeding here. Noiogue \. Clapp, 101 U. S. 551. And this is the case, even if the decree be fraudulent, unless there be alsa col- lusion, or some act of the parties tantamount thereto; as, for instance, if a decree be obtained ex parte by fraudulent representations. The Acorn, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 434; Michaels v. Post, 21 Wall. 398; U. S. v. Tkrockmorton, 98 U. S. 61. �Whatever may have been the rule regarding ecclesiastical courts ��� �