Powe v. Payne, 208 Ala. 527, 94 So. 587; Miller v. Thompson, 205 Ala. 671, 89 So. 51; Winters v. Powell, 180 Ala. 425, 61 So. 96; Fies v. Rosser, 162 Ala. 504, 50 So. 287, 136 Am. St. Rep. 57; Worthington v. Miller, 134 Ala. 420, 32 So. 748; Landsden v. Bone, 90 Ala. 446, 8 So. 65; Woodstock I. Co. v. Fullenwider, 87 Ala. 584, 6 So. 197, 13 Am. St. Rep. 73. Equity will set aside as null and void a decree of the probate court awarding homestead, where the petition contains a false material allegation. Lester v. Stroud, 212 Ala. 635. 103 So. 692; Keenum v. Dodson, 212 Ala. 146, 102 So. 230; Danne v. Stroecker, 210 Ala. 483, 98 So. 479; Bolden v. Sloss-S. S. I. Co., 215 Ala. 334, 110 So. 574, 49 A.L.R. 1206; Nichols v. Dill, 222 Ala. 455, 132 So. 900. Equity will set aside decree confirming report of commissioners setting aside homestead where actual notice of ten days was not given to resident heirs or next of kin and constructive notice to nonresident heirs and next of kin. Code 1923, § 7932; Lester v. Stroud, supra; Gill v. More, 200 Ala. 511, 76 So. 453; 50 C. J. 496. Frank B. Embry, of Pell City, for appellee.

In our view, this is the effect of our decisions wherein this court has frequently defined the equity jurisdiction, with full review of authorities. We here cite these cases without again reviewing and restating their holdings: Keenum v. Dodson, 212 Ala. 146, 102 So. 230; Hardeman v. Donaghey, 170 Ala. 362, 367, 369, 54 So. 172; Noble v. Moses, 74 Ala. 616; Cromelin v. McCauley, 67 Ala. 542; Edmondson v. Jones, 204 Ala. 134, 85 So. 799; Sims v. Riggins, 201 Ala. 99, 105, 106, 77 So. 393; De Sota Coal Min. Dev. Co. v. Hill, 194 Ala. 537, 69 So. 948; Id., 188 Ala. 667, 65 So. 988; Danne v. Stroecker, 210 Ala. 483, 98 So. 479; Harris v. Harris, 208 Ala. 20, 93 So. 841; Evans v. Wilhite, 167 Ala. 587, 52 So. 845; Nixon v. Clear Creek Co., 150 Ala. 604, 43 So. 805, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1255; McDonald v. Pearson, 114 Ala. 630, 21 So. 534; Watts v. Frazer, 80 Ala. 186; Hall v. Pegram, 85 Ala. 522, 5 So. 209, 6 So. 612; Humphries v. Burleson, 72 Ala. 1; Alder v. Van Kirk L. C. Co., 114 Ala. 551, 21 So. 490, 62 Am. St. Rep. 133; United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 25 L.Ed. 93; United States v. Beebe, 180 U.S. 343, 21 S.Ct. 371, 45 L.Ed. 563; Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U.S. 589, 12 S.Ct. 62, 35 L.Ed. 870; Marine Ins. Co. v. Hodgson, 7 Cranch (11 U.S.) 332, 3 L.Ed. 362; Greenleaf v. Maher, Fed. Cas. No. 5,780, 2 Wn. C. C. (Pa.) 393; 6 Pom. Eq. Jur. p. 1092; 2 Story Eq. Jur. § 1575; Freeman on Judgments, § 489; 34 C. J. p. 473, note 80; 1 Black on Judgments, §§ 369, 370; note 54 Am. St. Rep. 227. Affirmed.

Austin v. Willis, 90 Ala. 421, 8 So. 94; Bolling v. Jones, 67 Ala. 508; Johnson v. Porterfield, 150 Ala. 532, 43 So. 228. False report of O. B. Smith to the administrator as to value of timber on the land constituted fraud against which appellants can be relieved. Danne v. Stroecker, 210 Ala. 483, 98 So. 479; Farrell v. Farrell, supra. Crews Johnston, Clayton, for appellees.

The evidence on the hearing of the motion to remove was taken in the presence of the court. It disclosed the fact — without dispute, indeed — that the alleged will of the deceased, purporting to devise and bequeath the entire estate of deceased to the appellant, was a forgery, concocted by her and executed under her advice and direction after the death of the alleged testator, and imposed upon the probate court by means of a conspiracy to defraud appellee's ward and another of their heritable interest in the estate of deceased, constituting a case of fraud in the management of the proceeding in that court; to employ the language of the decisions, a fraud in the concoction of the decree admitting the will to probate. Danne v. Stroecker, 210 Ala. 483, 98 So. 479; Bolden v. Sloss-Sheffield Co., 215 Ala. 334, 110 So. 574, 49 A.L.R. 1206. The administratrix having been thus removed, it was of course proper, and for that matter necessary, to appoint an administrator in her stead.

These averments when taken as true, as must be done on demurrer, present a case of fraud extrinsic to the trial of the issues presented to and considered by the court in passing the final settlement, and "constitute a case of fraud in the management of the proceedings in the probate court — to employ the language of the decisions — in the concoction of the decree," unmixed with fault or negligence on the part of the complainant, and are sufficient under the statute to authorize intervention by a court of equity to avoid the decree. Code of 1923, § 6482; Danne v. Stroeker et al., 210 Ala. 483, 98 So. 79; Martinez et al. v. Meyers et. al., 167 Ala. 456, 52 So. 592; Rittenberry v. Wharton, 176 Ala. 390, 58 So. 293; Edmondson v. Jones, 204 Ala. 133, 85 So. 799. Another ground for avoiding the decree is stated in the bill, to wit, that the administrator collected the sum of $1,800 insurance, money, constituting assets of the estate coming into his hands as administrator, and for which he failed to charge himself in the accounts filed in the probate court on his final settlement, and concealed from the probate court the fact that he had received said sum of money, "and, as a result of said fraud so practiced against complainant and so perpetrated upon the court, an error of fact and law occurred in the final settlement of said estate" to the injury of complainant, of which fact she had no knowledge or notice. It was the duty of the administrator of said estate in the administration of the trust to honestly account for all the funds coming into his hands belonging to the estate, and his

"The foregoing being true, the bill makes out a case of fraud upon the court in the concoction or procurement of the decree, as it not only shows that the same was based upon false proof, but upon a false petition invoking the power or jurisdiction of the court to award the homestead to the widow to the exclusion of the minor children. Danne v. Stroecker, 210 Ala. 483, 98 So. 479."

The foregoing being true, the bill makes out a case of fraud upon the court in the concoction or procurement of the decree, as it not only shows that the same was based upon false proof, but upon a false petition invoking the power or jurisdiction of the court to award the homestead to the widow to the exclusion of the minor children. Danne v. Stroecker, 210 Ala. 483, 98 So. 479. The fraud here charged goes to the falsity of the petition, which was essential to give the probate court jurisdiction to decree the homestead absolutely and exclusively to the widow as it had no authority to do so unless the decedent left no minor children. Smith on the Law of Fraud, § 225; Evans v. Woodsworth, 213 Ill. 404, 72 N.E. 1082; Davis v. Allbritton, 127 Ga. 517, 56 S.E. 514, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 820, 119 Am. St. Rep. 352; Edson v. Edson, 108 Mass. 590, 11 Am. Rep. 393.