Lapse of time is, in itself, no bar to the demand of an account, by next of kin, against an administrator ; but it may raise a presumption, that an account has been rendered, and satisfaction made, or the claim to satisfaction abandoned, and the farthest this Court has gone in raising such presumption* is. the intervention of twenty years, between the time-when the settlement ought to have been made, and the filing of the bill. Bird v. Graham and others, 1 Ire. Eq. 198. In this case it is admitted, that a settlement has taken place, and the principal paid. Twenty years, however, have not, as far as we can see, passed since the ’time when the legacies were payable. The answer . states,, that the payments were made to some, more than twenty, but which of them he does not state, and it -vitas • -to be paid as they arrived at age, and those, respective periods have not been set forth by either party.. The bill .does not seek to set aside the settlement generally; but that it may be rectified, as to the matter of .interest.’ To entitle themselves to the relief they seek,' tlie- plaintiffs must show, that the interest was omitted .in the settlement, either through mistake, or accident, or fraud and imposition. None of these reasons exist in this’case, because the plaintiffs show they knew their rights,'and all the facts. *30and were perfectly aware of the omission to allow interest. Compton v. Green, 2 Dev. Eq. 96. They state, that at the settlement, “ the defendant paid them a part of their respective legacies, alleging that, that was the full amount of the principal money, for division, and refused to account for any .interest whateverWith this knowledge before them, and without any allegation of fraud, accident, or mistake, or any reason shown why he did so settle, they cannot be permitted now, after receiving the principal as all that was due to them, and after the length of time that has, elapsed, to come into Court, and ask an account of the interest, which was but an incident, at best, to the principal demand. We consider them concluded by-the settlements made.
The interlocutory order was erroneously made, and must be reversed, and the bill dismissed with costs.
Decree accordingly.