PULLIAM V. PUIililAM. 27 �in Lupton v. Janney, that the bill must be filed, at furthest, within the period prescribed by the statute of limitations for actions at law upon matters of account, (though I do not see why this is not an abrogation of the rule fchat the statute of limitations does not apply to express trustees,) this bill cornes within our statute of six years, and is filed in time. �It is true, the plaintiff could have filed this bill at any time aiter the expiration of the two years allowed the executor by law to settle the estate, (Tenn. Code, § 2311,) and she might possibly have main- tained a bill for an account at any time after the six months allowed to ascertain the condition of the estate, (Code, § 2274;) but, consid- ering her rights under this will, she might well delay any demand for an account until the executor had collected the assets and paid the debts, presuming that he would do his duty ; and certainly he had no right to require that she should ask for a settlement in a court of equity before he himself considered the estate ready for settlement in a court where, by law, he was bound to settle. �There can be no doubt, therefore, that the plaintiff here ia entitled to an account ; and our only duty now is to determine, so far as we can, the extent to which it shall go, and the principles that shall guide the master in stating it. Field v. Holland, 6 Cranch, 8; Dm- bourg v. U. S. 7 Pet. 625. �And, first, what effect is to be given to the settlement made by the executor with the county court of Fayette county on July 19, 1872, and which was examined and approved by that court at its October term, 1872? It does not appear whether the notice required by sec- tion 2298 of the Tennessee Code of the making of this settlement was ever given. The settlement of accounts by executors and admin- istrators is regulated in detail by statute, including a requirement for notice to the parties interested ; and section 2305 provides that a set- tlement, when so made and recorded, shall be prima facie evidence in favor of the accounting party. Code, §§ 2295, 2305, and note. The defendant insists that the plaintiff must successfully attack the ac- count by showing eiTors in it, and only to the extent that she sur- charges and falsifies it by such errors can he be required to account again ; that this settlement has the verity of a judicial record, and must be here so considered. There is no question but that it has this effect in the state courts wherever the settlement is called in ques- tion. This statute is not a mere rule of evidence, but a declaration of the force and effect of the judicial decree in the county court ap- proving the settlement. Snodjrass v. Snodjrass, 1 Bax. 161; Milly ��� �
