management of the estate. Henry K. Jones became of age October 30, 1883, and Matilda C. Jones on August 2, 1886. On August 11, 1886, the trustees deeded to Henry K. and Matilda C. Jones, jointly, all of the real estate held in trust, the active trustee, however, retaining control of the personal estate until March 10, 1888, when the personal property for which he accounted was turned over in equal parts, and a receipt in full given by each of the claimants, purporting to discharge the trustees from liability as trustees. J. Huff Jones died testate, but insolvent, December 16, 1892. Shortly after the death of J. Huff Jones, Henry K. Jones for the first time made an examination of the books of J. Huff Jones kept in connection with the books of another trust estate in the hands of J. Huff Jones, and found substantial inaccuracies in the accounts. This directed his attention to the accounts kept by deceased of the transactions relating to the property of these claimants, and on examination he found inaccuracies in the account. Further investigation by the claimant and experts resulted in the presentation of the present claim.

After the presentation of this claim, an expert accountant, Mr. John H. Clegg, was employed to examine the books of deceased, and the result of his examination was a finding that there was on the 10th of March, 1888, a balance due the claimants of $25,258.07 over and above the amount accounted for. A stipulation was entered into between the parties, reading as follows:

"It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the examination of the books and accounts of said suit, made by John H. Clegg, at the trial of this cause on appeal, may be treated as though such examination had been made by a referee, under the direction of the court, for the purpose of ascertaining the amount due from J. Huff Jones to claimants, according to the books and papers of J. Huff Jones in the condition they were in at the time of his death, and the amount so found due may be considered the same as if found by a referee; provided, that this stipulation shall not be con

strued as in any way to prevent the raising of an issue of fact or law based upon any alterations, omissions, or errors which may be found in the original entries and accounts of said J. Huff Jones, deceased, as to any part or all of said account, or of any question concerning the same; or likewise to prevent the raising of an issue of fact or law based upon dealings between claimants and said deceased concerning said claim, or any part thereof. [Signed] "SIDNEY T. MILLER,

"Att'y for Claimants. [Signed] "GEORGE W. RADFord,

"Att'y for Appellant."

In our view, this stipulation left very little to litigate. As regards the amount of the liability, if any existed, if the contestant had been able to show that this amount was incorrect because of omissions and errors or alterations, it was open to it to do so; but we do not think the testimony offered, when analyzed, impeaches the finding of Mr. Clegg. No special errors in the account are pointed out in the brief of appellant's counsel, while the testimony of witnesses for claimants shows very clearly that the changes were made in the books either by J. Huff Jones or his bookkeeper, and in his lifetime.

It is contended by appellant's counsel

"That it was a question of fact for the jury to determine whether the investigations of Clegg were of sufficient weight and accuracy to show fraud, mistake, or misrepresentation on the part of J. Huff Jones, and thus overthrow the settlement of March 10, 1888, between claimants and J. Huff Jones, by which the former acknowledged payment in full, and released J. Huff Jones from all liability."

We do not agree with this contention. All the testimony in the case was to the effect that neither of the claimants had ever examined into the transactions of deceased as their trustee. There was no pretense that they had personal knowledge of the transactions. It cannot be gainsaid that the receipts on their face show that the trustee had assumed to account for all the avails of their property; and yet at the very date, as appears from the

finding of Mr. Clegg (whose finding is of the force of that of a referee), there was in the hands of this trustee, unaccounted for, more than $25,000. We are all satisfied that the testimony on behalf of claimants not only overcame the evidence afforded by the receipts, but that it left no room for any inference inconsistent with liability.

The point is made that the claimants were barred by the statute of limitations before Mr. Jones' death. As essential to this contention, the counsel for appellant argues that, by the terms of the trust, the same terminated when Matilda C. Jones reached the age of 21 years. But the mere fact that money due the cestui que trust is allowed by him to remain in the hands of the trustee does not change the nature of the debt, and, until an accounting was had or demanded, the statute of limitations did not run. 2 Perry, Trusts, § 863 (p. 513, 4th Ed.), and cases cited; Frank v. Morley's Estate, 106 Mich. 635. Judgment affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

MORAN v. L'ETOURNEAU.

1. EQUITY-RES JUDICATA.

A decree dismissing, after a hearing on the merits, a bill to set aside for fraud a written agreement as to the compensation to be allowed by complainant to defendant as her attorney, is conclusive of the validity of the agreement, when attacked upon the same ground in a subsequent proceeding.

2. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT-AGREEMENT FOR COMPENSATION. An attorney's undertaking to "secure" for his client her rights in a decedent's estate, in consideration of a stipulated interest in the property so secured, is fulfilled, so as to entitle him to the agreed compensation, where he performs all ser

vices necessary to the establishment of his client's rights, although the estate acquired vests in the client by operation of law.

Appeal from Wayne; Hosmer, J. Submitted June 14, 1898. Decided September 20, 1898.

Bill by Charles G. Moran against Annie L'Etourneau to enforce an equitable interest in real estate. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. Reversed.

Barbour & Rexford (W. F. & W. D. Atkinson, of counsel), for complainant.

Jasper C. Gates, for defendant.

MONTGOMERY, J. This suit involves the title of 5-81 of lots 21 and 22 of block 5 of the Cass farm, in the city of Detroit. August 26, 1860, Francis L'Etourneau died testate. These lots were part of his estate. In 1891 his will was construed by this court, and it was settled that the estate of Sarah L'Etourneau was entitled to 5-9 of the property. L'Etourneau v. Henquenet, 89 Mich. 428 (28 Am. St. Rep. 310). The daughter of defendant, Margaret L'Etourneau, claimed to be entitled to 3-54 of the estate as heir to her father. The decree of the circuit court recognized this right, but by the terms of the decree in this court she was excluded from so taking. James J. Atkinson appears to have represented the interests of Margaret under an employment by defendant. At first the terms were oral and somewhat indefinite, but afterwards, on July 30, 1891, they were reduced to writing. The agreement reads as follows:

"This agreement, made and entered into between Mrs. Annie L'Etourneau, of the first part, and James J. Atkinson, of the second part, witnesseth: Said party of the second part has for some time past been engaged in securing for said party of the first part, as her attorney, her rights and interests in the estate, both real and personal,

of Francis L'Etourneau, Clothilde L'Etourneau, Eleanor L'Etourneau, Timothy L'Etourneau, Sarah L'Etourneau, and Emily Hennaguennet, deceased, all formerly residents of Michigan, and all relatives by marriage of said party of the first part; said property being all her interest in any and all property coming to her daughter from the estate of Francis L'Etourneau directly or by inheritance from his heirs, a more particular description of which is to be found in deeds to the said party of the first part from her said daughter (Margaret L'Etourneau), acknowledged in Paris, France, on June 9, 1889, and September 23, 1890. He is to continue and secure for said party of the first part all he can out of each of said estates and property, and with all possible speed, and is to pay all counsel fees and all expenses connected therewith. In consideration of the same, the said party of the first part agrees that of said property, real or personal, so secured, the said party of the second part shall receive, as his compensation, a one-third, the balance, two-thirds, to be the property of the said party of the first part, and to be delivered to her at the close of said proceedings."

In addition to the appearance in L'Etourneau v. Henquenet, Mr. Atkinson or his associates appeared in probate court, and attended at the time of the appointment of an administrator upon the estate of Sarah L'Etourneau. No other substantial service was rendered. The defendant, as appears recited in the agreement above set out, and as also appears by other testimony, acquired by deed the interest of Margaret. The present complainant claims under a deed from James J. Atkinson of a 5-81 part.

Before the conveyance to complainant, the defendant filed a bill of complaint against Atkinson in the circuit court for the county of Wayne, in chancery, alleging that the instrument above recited was obtained by fraud, and praying, among other things, that it be declared void. The case was heard before Judge Carpenter, and a decree entered dismissing the bill. It also appears from the opinion of Judge Carpenter that there was no misrepresentation by Atkinson as to the nature of the service required to establish her right to the estate. This decree

118 MICH.-11.