Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/524

 been entered as follows: 'And the plaintiff and the defend- ants,. . . Thomas Keys,. . . and also in his cs- pacity of guardian ad litm of Bridget Walsh and Hillam Walsh, consenting to the following decree: And this court being satisfied upon the representations of counsel that the decree is fit and proper to be made as a?iat the said Bridget and William; it is thereupon ordered, and adjudged, and decreed,' etc. "On a bill of review, filed by the minors, this d ecree was challenged, among other ressons, on the ground that it ap- peared to have been made by consent of their guardian ad l/tern and upon the. reprentati0ns'of counsel without prOOf. The court decided against the contention, and speaking in - reference thereto, through Mr. Chief Justice Gray, said: "'An infant is ordinarily bound by acts done in good faith by his solicitor or counsel in She course of the suit, to the same extent as a person of full ae. Ti//otm v. Hatgrave, 3 Madd. 494; Levy v. Levlj, 3 Madd. 245. And a compromise, appear- ing to the court to be for the benefit of an infant, will be con- firreed without a reference to a master; and, if sanctioned by the court, otnnot be 'afterwards set aside except for fraud. L/pp/at v. Holleg, 1 Bear. 423; Brook v. Moztp, 33 Beav.. 457, and 2 De C. J. & S. 373. "' If the court does pronounce a decree against an infant by consent, and without inquiry whether it will be for 'his benefit, he is as much bound by the decree as if there had been a ref- erence to a master and a report by him that it was for the benefit of the infant. Wa/l v. Bushby, 1 Bro. Ch. 484; 1 Dan. Ch. Pr. 164. The case falls within the general rule, that a de- cree made by consent of-counsel, without fraud or collusion, cannot he set aside b' reheating, appeal or review. Wb v. Webb, 3 Swanst, 658; Harrison v. Run'aey, 2 Ves. Sen. 488; Bradish v'. G, Ambl. 229; $. C., 1 Keny. 73; Downing v. Cage, 1 Eq. Cas. Ab. 165; Toder v. Sunsam, 1 Bro. P. C. (2d ed.) 468; FcA v. 8hotwe//, 5 Johns. Ch. 555.'" This also seems to he the settled law of Missouri. Raining v.

�