In re the Estate of Deyo

The surrogate made his decree upon final accounting September 9,1814.' This is an appeal from an order made by the surrogate September 3, 1883, nine years afterwards, refusing to vacate the final decree and reopen the settlement to the end that an alleged error against the appealing executor to the amount of $280.02 be corrected. We think the order should be affirmed. The lapse of time, the smallness of the amount, the inconclusive evidence of the existence of the alleged error, convince us that the surrogate wisely exercised his discretion in refusing to reopen the decree.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements»

I concur in this opinion. After the lapse of nine years from the entering of the decree, it should not be opened except upon the clearest evidence of mistake. Such evidence is not, as I think, before us. The presumption in favor of the record is not here answered, save by a suspicion as to its correctness. That will not be*held to be sufficient, even after a brief period of time and muck *513less when brought forward after a delay greater than that which would bar an ordinary action on account.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.