We are inclined to think that the reasons in support of the decree of 1867 are much stronger than any that have been or can be adduced in favor of the decree of 1869.
But as there is no appeal from that part of tjre decree of 1874, which vacates the decree of 1867, we are not called upon to consider that view of the case, but are only required to examine the grounds of appeal from so much of the decree of 1874 as vacates the decree of 1869.
It is evident, from an inspection of the record, that what is called the decree of 1869, does not meet the justice of the case, inasmuch as some of the heirs are not required to acconnt for advancements made in the lifetime of the ancestor.
And it may be that the decree of 1867 is not equitable for no accurate account of such advancements appears to have been taken as a basis for that decree.
By the decree of 1874 the whole matter is opened to the end that the advancements may be enquired into and accurately ascertained, and the rights of all the parties fully determined. This is the only way in which the merits of the controversy can be reached and adjusted.
And his Honor having found “that the decree of 1869, and the petition and other proceedings upon which it was founded, were instituted and rendered without the knowledge or consent of the petitioners, Susan E. Herring, Martha Moore and Elizabeth Bordeaux, (who were infants,) and that no decree in full was drawn up and'signed by the Judge at May Term, 1869, nor at any time thereafter, but that the simple entry “ final decree, •cost paid into office,” is to be found on the judgment docket of the Courtq and further, that the decree was founded upon a *240petition filed at Spring Term, 1869, which was more than twelve months after the decree of 1867, and that the petition was not sworn to,” it would seem that Collins and the other parties advanced should not complain of the order setting aside the decree of 1869, especially when every argument and authority urged by them in support of the decree of 1869, applies with double force in favor of the decree of 1867, which they procured to be set aside by the irregular proceedings pointed out by his Honor.
Let it be certified that there is no error in the decree of January Term,f1874, from a portion of which some of the parties have appealed.
Per CubiaM. ' Judgment accordingly.