May and Pasco v. May-Opinion of Court. the assignment for their own supposed benefit and protection. VI. Appellants insist that the decree was erroneous because it gives no idea of the rulings of the court upon the various issues raised by the pleadings; that no account was taken, though an account was prayed for, that the sureties of the guardian are only liable for a balance found due after an account stated; that the decree was far too large an amount; that by the peculiar and unusual mode adopted of arriving at the amount the appellants were prevented from making exceptions; that they had a right to have ali the items set forth at length so that proper exceptions could be framed and a thorough examination had of the whole matter. This suit was brought to establish the liability of the guardian and his sureties upon the guardian's bond, and to obtain an accounting to ascertain the amount due and for a decree accordingly. The defence set up by the sureties to defeat a recovery, to-wit: that the investment was made by an insolvent debtor as a settlement upon his daughter, and was fraudulent as to his creditors, we find not to be i valid defence in behalf of the defendants in this suit. The Chancellor did not, in words, pass upon and decide this question, but in finding that the defendants were liable upon the bond for the amount of the proceeds of the policy of insurance, less certain allowances and disbursements, he held that the answer did not set up a defence to the bill. We cannot find any error in so holding, for we have come to the same conclusion. As to the conclusion whether the Chancellor should have referred the testimony to a master to state an account instead of rendering a decree directly upon the testimony the general rule is that when "the suit involves matters of account the action of a master should be had in the inferior May and Pasco v. May-Opinion of Court. court, and the items admitted or rejected should be stated, so that exception may be taken to the particular items or class of items, and such a case should be brought before this court on the rulings of the exceptions by the Circuit Court. Lessee of McCall vs. Carpenter, 18 Howard, 297. That case involved matters of long complicated accounts into the examination of which the court would not enter. See also Harding vs. Handy, 11 Wheat., 103, 126; Hudson vs. Trenton L. & M. Co., 1 C. E. Green, 475. A reference to a master for that purpose was the general practice, in which, after disposing of questions of pleading and directing issues, the master was decreed to take testimony and report thereon. In the case last referred to the court remarks, after citing authorities, "these cases settie the practice that the court will not, at the original hearing, as a general rule, examine or decide whether particular items of the account shall or shall not be allowed, and that evidence for that purpose, in strictness, is inadmissible. But the principle is not of universal application, and must depend in some measure upon the nature of the proceedings." There is no rule absolutely requiring the reference to a master. This is done for the convenience of the court. The statute does not require it, but provides that the testimony may be taken in open court or in vacation, or an examiner may be appointed to take testimony under rules to be prescribed. Th. Dig., 466, 461; McC. Dig., 168. We examine the record to find whether a reference to a master and his report was here necessary to an understanding of the questions involved and to making a proper decree. In 1874 and again in 1876 Alvin May as guardian, as is alleged by complainant, rendered his accounts to the County Judge, charging himself with the amount of the insurance money and with interest thereon, and charging his ward with the disbursements paid on account of costs in the matter of the guardianship, with her board May and Pasco v. May-Opinion of Court. and other expenses, and with commissions for receiving and caring for the fund. It was objected that there was no competent proof that Alvin May rendered these accounts to the County Judge. The testimony shows that the first account showing the amount due from the guardian to the ward ($5,439.20) up to September 3, 1874, was in the handwriting of Alvin May the guardian, and the affidavit of its correctness signed by him and sworn to before the County Judge. This paper was found in the office of the Judge, though not marked "filed." The second account in which the guardian is charged with the foregoing balance due September 3, 1874, and $812.02 interest to August 10, 1876-total, $6,251.22, and credits to him up to August 10 sundry sums amounting to $354.58, showing a balance then due from him to the ward, $5,896.64, was found in the Judge's office, and recorded by him in the record of accounts. There was no file mark on this paper, but an account of record immediately preceding it in the record book was sworn to July 28, 1876, and an account following it was sworn to September 1, 1876. An order appears of record under date of 28 August, 1876. signed by the County Judge as follows: "In the matter of the estate of Eva Lee May, a minor, &c., of Alvin May guardian. This day this cause came on to be heard upon the account of Alvin May as guardian of Eva Lee May, a minor, he having filed the said account with the proper vouchers therein, all of which having been duly examined by the court and appearing to be correct it is ordered that the said account be and the same is hereby in all things confirmed and allowed. Done and ordered this 28th day of August, A. D. 1876.” This order necessarily refers to the account found of record, and shows that Alvin May, the guardian, rendered the account and produced vouchers, which were duly examined May and Pasco v. May-Opinion of Court. and found to be correct, whereupon the account was confirmed and allowed. The last account refers to the account previously rendered, and the order therefore reaches and confirms it also. We can only conclude from all this evidence that Alvin May as guardian appeared in person before the Judge and rendered the account, proved its correctness to the satisfaction of the Judge, who rendered his judgment accordingly. The complainant, if any one, had reason to complain of the guardian's account in that he charges himself with interest in gross for a term of years instead of making annual rests, thus producing a much smaller sum than she was entitled to. It is worthy of remark here that the above-mentioned mortgage appears to have been assigned to Eva Lee May under date of January 1, 1872, and proved for record before the Clerk January 4, 1873. and yet the guardian makes no mention of it in his accounts rendered to the Judge. Had he regarded it as a bona fide transaction he must have charged it in his account. The first account rendered to the County Judge charges the ward The second account, August 10, 1876, charges her with May and Pasco v. May-Opinion of Court. From all which it appears that the sum of $1,478.38 was charged to her for board, clothing, commissions, “additional compensation" and interest, and $37 for Judge's feees, &c. These charges for board and clothing, considering that the father was in law and duty bound to support his infant daughter, and that she was under no legal obligation to pay him for it, were certainly liberal, and his sureties have nothing to complain of. These amounts are doubtless largely in excess of the premiums paid or promised to be paid upon the policy of insurance. They are also quite equal to the estimate made by the witness (Grantham) of a fair compensation for her support The father was in better condition to know what the expenses actually were, and to charge accordingly. The last account was brought down to August 10, 1876, at which time the balance struck by the guardian against himself was $5,896.64 Interest to date of decree, 4 y'rs, 5 mos., 14 d'ys, 2,062.50 $7.959.14 The decree was rendered 24th December, 1880, for the sum of $7,891.20. There is no proof of any expenditure on behalf of the ward which is not embraced in the guardian's accounts. VII. The accounts of the guardian having been made to the County Judge and duly passed upon and allowed by him, as appears by the record, this is at least prima facie sufficient to charge the sureties for the amount found due. Vance's Admr. vs. Vance's Distributees, 5 Mon., 521; Scott vs. Dorsey's Exrs., 1 Har. & J., 227; Spedden vs. The State, 3 Id., 251; 2 Phill. Ev. C. & Hill's Notes, 83, 4 Ani. Ed. The preliminary questions raised by the answer having been disposed of by the court in adjudging that complain |