The weekly Panola star. [volume] (Panola, Miss.) 1857-1881, 1866-06-23
APRIL TERN, 1866.
J. i. Slaughter, executor, ct al, VS.
Mary l.. Garland.

J. i. Slaughter, executor, ct al, VS.
Mary l.. Garland.
OPINION or THE COURT DELIVERED
BY CHIEF JUSTICE HANDY.
On the 9th January, 1868, the APP
pellee fled her petition in the Pro-
bate Court, stating that she was a
resident of the State of Virginia, aud
the widow OF Samuel Garland, sr.,
deceased, who died in November,
1861, a resident of that State, leav-
ing no child or descendants Of any
child surviving him, and leaving a
last will and testament, dated 7th
December, 1857, and seized and pos
sessed of large estate, real and per-
sonal, both in Virginia and in this
State; all Of which, was disposed of
in said will, and provision was made
for the widow. This will was ad-
mitted to probate in Virginia on the
I'd December, 1861, and the widow
filed her remuneration Of It's provis-
ions in her favor, in the same court
where il was admitted to probate,
with her election TO take her dover
and legal share of the estate on the
9th March, 1852, an authentic copy
Of which remuneration and election
was in the Probate Court Of Hinds
county, and an authenticated copy
Of the will was admitted TO probate
in that county on the 9th November,
1862. The executors residing in
Virginia, did not qualify in Missis-
sippi, and letters Of administration,
with the will annexed, we're granted
by the Probate Court Of Kinds
county, in this State, to Burr Gar
land. The petition further states
that the testator left an estate in Vir-
ginia largely more than sufficient to
pay his debts, and that he owed no
debts in this State Of the least conse-
quencc. The prayer was for her
dover Of one-half the lands, and for
one-half Of the personality, under
the laws of this State, or for general
relief.
The executor fled a demurrer to
the petition on sundry grounds,
which being ovcrruled, he filed his
answer admitting the material facts
stated in the petition, but denying
the right Of the petitioner to demand
her legal portion Of the estate accord
ing to the statutes Of this State. The
answer was also made a oroz-pctition
and stated that, in January, 1868,
the appellee fled her petition, or Pate,
10 the Probate Court Of Kinds coun-
", for the allotment to her Of one
years provisions, aud for such prop
erty Of the testator's personal estate
as was exempt from execution; and
that the appellee was never q citizen
of this State, and that such allotment
was ordered to be made by the cour,
without notice TO the executor. Th'
cros--pctitioner also set mp othel
grounds Of objection 10 the appellee
petition, not necessary 10 be men
toned. To this cross-petition, tb'
appellee fled demurrer, which wa
sustained. The original petition wa
dismissed as to the real estate, an,
on the final hearing, a decree wa
rendered in favor Of the petitionc
for one-hali Of the personal estiie Q
the tcstaior in this State, except . fe'
specified slaves, and from that deere
! the appeal was taken.
The first error assigned j. the over
riling of he appellants demurrer
the original petition.
/ The question presented under thi
and also under the third azsignmen
i whether the widow was entitled |
> her dover IN The real estate, end h