The following safeguards are placed by the-law around the estates of deceased persons; (1.) The persons most interested shall be appointed to manage them. Bat. *362Rev. cb. 45, § 3; (2.) They' must be persons “ competent ” to do the business; (3.) They must give bonds and sureties; (4.) They must take oaths, § 15 ; (5.) They must render accounts, § 25 ; (6.) Upon failure to do which they are liable to indictment and imprisonment; and (7.) To removal.
Borne of these safeguards are omitted in case of executors, where much is left to the discretion of the testator, as he may appoint whom he please, unless the person be expressly disqualified, and may or may not require bond.
After all, the chief safeguard and the one most valued, is integrity, shown by an open hand, full and accurate accounts, .and frequent reports. •
The defendants have been in their office of executors for twenty years. They returned no inventory of the estate which came to their hands, which was their first and most important duty ; and so far as appears, the secret to this day is locked up in their own breasts. They have 'rendered no account current showing what they have received and what they have paid out, and have not made or offered to make .any “ final settlement.’'" The excuse which they render is, that they did make a report of sales, and as they paid off all the debts of which they had knowledge and had nothing left, and the legatees were all of age, they thought an account unnecessary.
Now the Judge of Probate might very well have doubted the accuracy of the statement, that the debts of the estate and the assets fitted precisely — not a dollar too much or too little. And the fact that the legatees were all of age made no difference; because an account not rendered was just as unintelligible to an adult as to an infant.
JBut the defendants are mistaken in supposing that they had paid off all the debts of which they had knowledge; Tor the large debt now claimed bjr plaintiff and for which he has judgment, was owing by defendant, Jasper Stowe, as guai’-■dian, with his testator as his surety. ' He may well be sup*363posed to have known that he was a defaulter to his ward, and that his testator was his surety. And it was his duty, instead of delivering over the property to the legatees to be by them squandered, to'have subjected the property to the payment of the plaintiff's debt. As it is, the plaintiff's debt seems to be in jeopardy. Everything is gone but the land ; that has been delivered over to the legatees ; some of them have sold ; and two years have elapsed, and only what remains unsold with some of the legatees, remains to satisfy the plaintiff’s debt. This remnant the defendants seek to get their hands upon. The plaintiff may well be alarmed. It is true that the Court may require of the defendants a bond, but a bond cannot supply the want of integrity. They have already been guilty of malfeasance in office. Theyhave spent their own estate. The defendant, Jasper, has spent his. ward’s estate. They have squandered or allowed to be squandered their testator’s estate, and they have no excuse unless it be in “ the fashion of the times ” which the Courts ought to rebuke.
TVe agree with His Honor, and we are gratified to agree also with the Probate J udge, that the defendants ought to be removed.
There is no error. Let this be certified.
Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.