538 FEDERAL REPORTBB. �in England, there is no doutt that in this country courts of probate are almost universally courts of record, and their decrees as conclu- sive in collateral proceedings as those of any other court of record. Gary, Probate Law, § 24; Tebhets v. Tilton, 24 N. H. 120; Ostrom V. Curtis, 1 Cush. 461 ; Cummings v. Cummings, 123 Mass. 271 ; Barker v. Barker, 14 Wis. 131; Holmes v. Cal. e Or. E. Co. 9 Fed. Eep. 229. �In Loting v. Steineman, 1 Metc. 204, the principle of res adjudicata was applied to a decree of distribution, made upon sueh notice as is required by law. �Certain cases are cited by the complainants, which, it is insisted, establish an exception to this rule in the case of decrees of probate courts; but, upon a careful examination, we think all of them are consonant with the general proposition above stated. �In Payne v. Hook, 1 Wall. 425, a bill was sustained by a disti-ibutee to obtain her share in the estate of her brother, who died intestate, and whose estate was oommitted to the charge of a public admin- istrator by an order of a county court. The bill diiiered from the one under oonsideratioia, however, in the important facts that it charged gross misconduct on the part of the administrator ; that he had made false settlements with the court of probate; had not filed a true inventory of the property on hand; had used the mohey of the estate for bis private gain; and obtained from the complainant, by fraud- ulent representations, a receipt in full for her share of the estate on the payment of a less sum than she was entitled to receive. It further appeared from the bill that the defendant had not yet made bis final settlement in the probate court. It is stated in the opinion that the fraudulent conduct of the administrator was the groundwork of the bill, and it is evident that the question of a discharge by tiie probate court did not enter into the consideration of the case. �In Horn v. Lockhart, 17 Wall. 570, a bill was filed against an exec- utor to compel a settlement and distribution of the proceeda. The defence was that the probate court, in which the settlement of the estate was pending, had, by its decree, allowed the executor to invest the proceeds of the estate in confederate bonds, and the supreme court held that, as this was an act in furtherance and aid of the rebellion, it was illegal and void, and that the probate court could not give it validity. This was the ordinary case of a court acting without jurisdietion. �In Pratt t. Noriham, 5 Mason, 95, it was held by Mr. Justice Story ��� �
