Mr. Justice WAYNE

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Mississippi, thé District Judge presiding.

The suit was brought in the Vice-Chancery Court of Mississippi, and was transferred to the Circuit .Court, upon the application of the respondent, under the 12th section of the act of - September 24th, 1789, to establish the judicial courts of the United States.

Harriet J. Fourniquet and Anne M. Ewing are the stepdaughters of the respondent, from his intermarriage with their mother, Mary Bynum. She was the widow of their father, Benjamin Bynum.

The object of the suit was to recover their portion of $39,600, alleged by them to be marital community gams of the respondent and their mother, which they charge he invested in Mississippi, and was in hand at the death of their mother. The respondent is charged with having had no means of his own to make such investments; that the money was derived from the cotton estate in Louisiana; that’ the same, by the laws of that State, became a community of acquets and gains, one half of which, upon the death of their mother, became theirs and her other heirs; and they charge him, further, with having fraudulently taken the money derived from the Louisiana property, into Mississippi, to invest it there, in order to give him undue advantages over his wife’s and their interest in the fund. It is said, that at the death of their mother there were then living four children of the first husband, and three by the respondent. Three of the four and two of the three are still living. Mary B. Eskridge, one of the survivors of the Bynum children, and John Perkins and William Perkins, adults and .heirs of the complainant, do not concur with them in their suit, and for that reason are riot made parties. The respondent, besides being charged generally with fraud, is especially so in reference to certain receipts and releases, which these complainants gave to him, which they now say were obtained by concealment and circumvention.

The respondent, in. his answer to the bill, admits his marriage in Louisiana, at the time and place stated. That he rémoved to Mississippi with his wife in 1818; that their 'domicil was there continued to be kept during the coverture, and that their removal was hot only with the consent of the wife, but in pursuance of an understanding between them before their marriage *323 took place. He denies that’any community of gains was established conventionally, or that it legally could occur qnder the law of Louisiana, on account of the residence of himself and wife in that State when they were married, because it was their intention, before the marriage took place, to remove into Mississippi. He denies that any money, invested by him in lands in Mississippi, belonged, either legally or equitably, to his wife in either State; and asserts, even if there was a marital community between them, he was entitled to dispose - of the gains as- he pleased, without any liability, under the law of Louisiana, to account for the same to his wife or her representatives. He denies the charge, that he was without productive property or available means to purchase the property in Mississippi. That property consists of several tracts of land and the improvements put upon them, as is said, by community funds. The tract upon which the improvements were put contained one hundred acres. It was bought from Arthur Mahan, on the 30th October,, 1818, for $9,926. It was improved for a residence for the respondent with his family, including the,children of the wife by the first husband. There- was another tract, containing 2,100 acres, bought by the respondent from Elihu Hall -Bay, in' January, 1819, for $5,000. There were two other purchases,— one of them, a lot in Natchez, bought from Walter S. Parker, in March, 1823, for $600; and the other is a purchase from Sugar Zenoiyin March, 1824, for $1,000. The aggregate sum given for these lands, and the improvements upon the first, amount to $39,600. • The complainants allege, that they have a right to elect' to take their interest in them in money, with interest upon the amount from the time of their mother’s death.

To this answer, the complainants filed the general replication.

The case was tried, and the court below gave an interlocutory decree against the respondent. It declares -that a community of gains had existed between the respondent and his wife during the marriage. That its resources were altogether in Louisiana, and that the respondent had invested from the gains large sums in the purchase and improvement of real estate in Mississippi, and- that it was held by him, in 1824, when the marriage was dissolved by the death of Mrs. Perkins. The court also referred the matter to a master, to take an account conformably to its decree. In the course of the reference, the master sustained an objection to an allowance for which the complainants contended. It wap submitted to the court, whether he had properly refused it. He was ’instructed, that it was only necessary for him to ascertain the amount of the funds vested by the rpspondent in’ Mississippi during the community; and that, as,to the sofirce *324 from which Perkins derived them, the court would decide under all the proof. The master proceeded accordingly. He reported, without any proof of the source from which Mr. Parkins obtained the money, that $16,968.76 was due to the complainants. The report was subsequently confirmed, and the court gave a final decree for them for the sum just stated, with interest, at 8 per cent, from the 1st April, 1850.

It dpes not appear that the court’s attention had been particularly directed to the releases which the complainants admit they gave to the respondent, and which he says were given to him with a positive denial of the statement, that he obtained them by fraud, concealment, and circumvention.

If it had been, we think that the court would have determined the effect of the releases upon the case before it gave its interlocutory decree, and that it would not have made a final decree upon the master’s report.

We proceed to give pur view of these releases.

The first, from Ewing and wife, was executed on the 11th April, 1828. Fourniquet and wife executed theirs on the 27th May, 1834, within a month of six years after the other.

They are as follows:

Release from E. P. Fourniquet et ux. to John Perkins.

Received, Natchez, May 27th, 1834, of John Perkins, on settlement of all accounts, debts, dues, and demands, whatever, up to the present day, one hundred dollars in full, having, on a previous occasion, received from him, as the guardian of my wife, Mrs. Harriet J. Fourniquet, late Miss Bynum, all the estate, portion,, and share, which she inherited by the death of her late father, Benjamin Bynum, late of Concordia, Louisiana, deceased, or her mother, Mrs. Mary Perkins, of the county of' Adams, and State of Mississippi, and brother, Benjamin S. Bynum, of the county of Clairborne, and State last aforesaid, deceased; and do, by these presents, jointly with my said wife, release and forever discharge the said Perkins, from all and every claim which she, 'or either of us, might or could have against him,-the said Perkins, either as guardian-or otherwise, growing out of the estates aforesaid, or in any other matter and shape whatsoever, and forever exonerate him, by these presents, his heirs and executors and administrators therefrom.

[In] witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands and seals, the day and year first above written, to wit, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and -thirty-four, in the presence of Elijah Bell and John E. Maddux, whose names are hereunto subscribed, as witnesses hereunto, the said John Per *325 kins being also personally present, and by these presents aocept-

E. P. Fourniquet. seal.'

Harriet Fourniquet. seal.

John Perkins. [seal.

Witnessed, signed, sealed, and delivered, in the presence of— Elijah Bell,

John E. Maddux.

Release from M. W. Ewing to John Perkins.

Received of John Perkins two negro slaves, Lewis and Anderson, also his draft on A. Fisk, for four hundred and seventy dollars, thirty-four cents, in one , hundred and twenty days, indorsed by R. M. Gaines; which, when paid, will be in full of all claims and demands, of every kind and description, which we, or either of us, may have against said Perkins individually, or against him as curator of the estates of Benjamin Bynum and Mary Perkins, in the parish of Concordia, State of Louisiana, or as executor of the will of the said Mary Perkins, dated March 30, 1822, and in full* of all -claims of every kind, which we or either of us, may have against said Perkins, in any way whatever; we having received from said Perkins, heretofore, the following named slaves, to wit: Judah Myers, aged 25 years; Edward, about 4 years; Harry, about 7 months; Little Daniel, about 16 years.; Patrick, 13 years; Lewis 5 years; Big Daniel, 50 years-; Big Sarah Miambo, about 50 years; Ned, 16 years ; Polly, 14 years; Frank, about 50 years; Maria, his Wife, 37 years old; Frank, aged about 1 year; Fanny, about 7; Samuel, about 19 years. Also two mules, thirty head of cattle,.and a chest of tools; and the Said Perkins accepts hereof, as a full satisfaction and discharge from the said Martin W. Ewing, and Anne, his wife, in the premises.

Witness our hands, this 11th day of April, A. D. 1828.

Martin W. Ewing,

Anne Ewing.

Att. R. M. Gaines. John Perkins.

The operative words óf these releases are as full as they can be, and they cover the subject-matter for which the complainants brought the suit.

We have carefully examined and considered this record, without finding in it any thing against the* fairness of the releases. The complainants do not give any proof against it. Nothing is in proof from which it can be inferred that they were given in ignorance of their- rights in the - estates of. Benjamin S. Bynum and Mary Bynum when the releases were made, or that they were in any way circumvented by the respondent, 'fheir testimony in the case is exclusively upon the community- of gains, *326 and upon the inability of the respondent to make such purchases and improvements from his own means.

It consists of copies of conveyances for the property bought, of depositions, in which there is not ’a word relating to the releases, and of answers by the respondent to other suits against him, one of which was a suit , in equity brought by these complainants in the Circuit Court of the United States, in Louisiana.

In that answer, may be found a narrative of the respondent’s business connection, and dealings with the estate of Benjamin S. Bynum and that of his "widow, afterwards the wifé of the respondent. It shows that he rendered an account of both. That it was done in an open manner and with an intention that it should be examined by those who were interested. It is further shown, that after the accounts had been officially filed, that there was a partition of all the property among the heirs, and that it was consummated by receipts and acquittances from all of them, among them those given by -Ewing and his wife, and by Fourniquet and his wife, as they have been already recited in this opinion. The respondent also denies in that answer the charge there made by'these complainants, as-it is repeated in this suit, that these acquittances were obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment,' and avers that they were executed by the parties with a full knowledge of all their rights, and for a valuable consideration. In that case, as in this, there was no proof that those receipts or releases were fraudu-' lently obtained. The witnesses, Henderson, Montgomery, and "Walworth, in this suit, are not questioned as to the execution of the releases.' The same interrogations were put to all of them. The answers of each are very immaterial for any pur-' pokes in this suit. No one of them knew any -thing concerning the respondent’s. pecuniary situation when he married, or when he removed into Mississippi, or of. the sources from which the money came which was invested in Mississippi. The same may be said of Wren’s testimony. Loria’s testimony is as indefinite as that of the others, and he also was not questioned "concerning the execution of the releases. On the other hand, the evidence produced by the respondent in this suit, shows'that the releases were not precipitately made. That neither of the complainants gave them until after they had had time to examine his accounts, and not until they had examined them. Whatever .they may have thought of the integrity of the respondent, they did not act then as if they suspected it. We see them receiving from him-their portions of the estates, of which they were distributees, and’ other property besides, as gratuities from the respondent, and dealing with both, among themselves and with others, and acting towards the respondents as if they were *327 content with what he had done, and with wh.at they had teeeived.

There was an. interval of live years and eleven months between the releases given by the complainants to the respondent. The accounts upon which they were given, were all that time accessible to them. The proofs show that Ewing had scanned them before he gave his release. His interest in the estates' were the same as Tourniquet's. It was a family business, talked of, no doubt, among themselves, as such matters always will be, and it cannot be supposed that Tourniquet took his wife’s portion of the estates without knowing that Ewing had given to the respondent a release when he took his wife’s part, or without having had the same means as his associate to learn the condition of the estates, and the truthfulness of. the respondent’s official .statement Of them. Their acceptance of the portions of their wives must be taken as an admission that the respondent had dealt fairly in the business, arid that he meant to do so, until they shall prove that it was his.design to cheat all of the heirs, including his own children, as well as the wives of the complainants. He may not have acted in his long management of the estates, with all caution and exactness, but nothing hag been shown in this case, in his final settlement with the heirs, that he did not mean to act with fairness and liberality, or that any one of them did not think he had done so, when they made these releases.

With the view of these releases, we think that the court erred in giving its interlocutory order for an account to be taken. We are relieved by it from considering the points which were made in the argument concerning any community of gains between the respondent and his wife. However that may have been, the releases put an end to all controversy between these parties about it. They were fully argued by counsel, as they should have been, as they could not foresee what would be our view upon the effect of the releases. We could not add any thing to the decisions of the courts of Louisiana upon connubial or legal communities of gains between husband and wife.

We are satisfied, whether it did or did not exist, that the releases given by the complainants are conclusive against them for any claim upon the respondent on account of the estates in which they -were interested. No proof having been given that these releases were obtained,by any fraud or .circumvention, we shall order the decree of the court below to be reversed, and that the bill of the complainants shall be dismissed.

Mr. Justice CUETIS dissented.

*328 Order.

■ This cause came ón to be heard on the transcript of the record from the'Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi, and was argued by counsel. On "consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court, that the decree of the said Circuit Court in this cause, be, and the same is. hereby, reversed, with costs, and that this cause be, and the same is -hereby,remanded to the said Circuit 'Court, with directions to dismiss the complainant’s bill.