The daily clarion. [volume] (Meridian, Miss.) 1863-1866, 1866-03-09
l. Ward, Admir- &c, and !
J.. II. Bridges, EXT &c,

l6EPorTED EXPRESSLY FOR TIE DAILY CLAmoN.)
Il. Ward, Admir- &c, and !
y /. II. Bridges Ext &c,
gThe State, use Of
ID. f. Mullins and others
ii Justice Elicit delivered the opinion o
eLouTt.
81 action of debt was brought in the Cir
6Conrt 81 Lawrence county, in the name
the state, for the use of the distributes
an administration bond. to recover
D. the administrator OF the administra
saud the executors of one Of his Sureties
Agamouut of money iOund to remain in
shauan Of the administration after settle.
Id of his final account, which was settled
b his death by his administrator. The
81 point raised for the decision of this
"a is whether the bond sued on was
Id This bond was executed bv Pollard
Hus Wards intestate.) b. X. Bridges,
FhOm the said l.. H. Bridges and II II
dEes are executors and S. j. Mullins, in
penalty of ten thousand dollars, and is
"a the Eth of January, 1854. The con-
ID j., in these words The condition of
above obligation is such that, whereas,
AboEe bound Pollard Mullins, admins
|or OF the estate of James Mullins. de-
g. hath heretofore executed Il bond
AbIe to jackson MllsapS, Judge of Pro-
y IN the sum of one thousand dollars, and
htoned for the discharge of his duties
administrator as aforesaid, which said
4 bears date the 18th day of November.
and whereas, by an order of the Court
3 ON the goth day of July, 4. ID. 1853.
bond and security hath been required
Aid Pollard Mullins. Now, therefore. if
sald Pollard Mullins shall well and truly
u kept, and shall well and truly keep
perform the conditions of the bond afore-
and shall IN all respects have perform
bd shall continue to perform the duties
Is office aforesaid, then this obligation
void, otherwise it shall remain in full
band virtue"
b declaration sets out the condition of
-St bond, which was in the form pre-
ed by the law i'll force at the time of it's
ptlon. (Hutch. Code, 656, sec. So
defendants, the executors of Bridges
pretty, pleaded that the bond sued upon
j. cause isinvalid and not binding upon
in this, tO-wit: that there was no pc
or application by the securities upon
I. Mullins first bond as administration.
Probate Court of Copiah county, for
but that the Judge of said Probate
required and took said bond sued up
executed at alb of his own mere mo-
bud accord
+ plaintiffs demurred to this plea, and
ped for causes of demurrer, LIST. That
pets set forth i'll said plea, if true as
lfd, would not constitute any legal de-
and, md. That said plea amounts to
eurral issue of NON est JdctHm: and the
lrrer was sustained.
counsel for the plaintiffs in error say
.i the assignments of error terminate |
point, and have for their object to |!
the validity Of the bond sued upon, |
Ee shall therefore COntine ourselves to /
Single point. The only ground upon |
P the validity of the bond is assailed by /
Pea is, that there was no petition or
ratlon Tor relief by the suretieS upon
PSI bond, but that the Judge required
ooA the bond on his own mere motion
accord There is no express aver
that parties interested i'll the
dld not petition for new bond,
7bc question may be considered
Sueh allegation had been made, and in
lSpect 1t Is to be determined whether
Fobate Court has the right in any case
pure an administrator to give new or
lohaI bond without an application for
purpose by the sureties on his first bond.
.othcr persons interested in the estate:
per, whether a bond given under the
distances supposed is void for want of
to take it, aud liable to be impeached ,
FIaiIy on that account.
ITubYr4 Count =, y..,,r+ & eli |
y In all matters of administration, and
eases within its jurisdiction its de-
Pre- maj and conclusive, and can only
P,dcAed Tor fraud, or reversed for error.
9Iecl matter in this case was clearly
| us jurisdiction. The Probate Court
DNtr to take administration bonds, and
,'iIFe new and additional bonds when
y be aSccrtained that the original bond
'I mas become insufficient. Whether
lFleuiar facts existed to Justify the ex-
oI Jhat jurisdiction i'll this instance,
question for the court to decide, upon
Instruction ofthe statutes, and in view
general powers. 1t is not disputed
ne administrator was duly summoned,
lI't jurisdiction over his person was
~ acquired. The decree having
requiring him to give a new bond,
u"t appeal. but submitted to the de-
anu complied with it by executing
Slrlnent now sued upon. Whether
'uVt committed an error in granting
"ecree could have been inquired into
appeal to this Court. but it would be
."rht OF most dangerous tendency to
1"' the Judgment of a court of record,
use wherein the subject matter and
tJleS were subject to its jurisdiction,
Dc d'Sregarded as nullity by reason
We are not by any means satisfied that
as any error in the proceeding. for K
the order of the Court could have :
s'cSed. 1t was then, as it is now, E
~ OF the Probate Court in granting
ol administration, to take bond in
) al least equal 10 the value of the
O., ( Hutch. Code. CSC, See. sc; Rev.
45s, Art 63.)
"' also provided that if the Court
grant letters without taking good
! ior the same, or if the security so
snail afterwards become insufficient,
ne lawful for the Court, on the appl-
VI any person interested in the dis
50" vi the estate, to require such eX-
., ut administrator to give other good
ulcient security, and in default there 4
eI'eiS OF such executor or admins
Shail be revoked" Clutch. c., 65S,
y And the next succeeding section
,@eS the suretieS when they conceive
ives IN danger of suffering thereby,
uon the Court for relief. r
e provisions are substantially re- !
IN the Revised Code, page 439, Art.
IL there was not and is not now any
provision in the statutes for the case
no taken in an insufficient amount to
ne value of the estate. Nothing is ]
aSy than for the Court to fall into an
Of to be willfuly misled in this respect. y
,eh'ory or appraiSement, and no re-
assets can be made until after the
alton OF the administrator, and moth .
IN ME when the bond is taken, to show
iUe OIL the estate. In the present case,
ualty of the first bond was only one
hu dollars, and after an administration z
< through nine years, and the
NJ OF all debts and expenses of the
heht of the estate, there remained
e OF over four thousand dollars in the
Oh the administrator. Is there no
J To correct such mistake as this 2
! ue that no statute specially points /
: manner in which~it may be done,
IoOdte court 10 HOtIIuSs DuG
II n particularly set down in some stat
MS would be very erroneous view
powers of that court. Its jurisdiction
19nly lull, but peculiar in its charac-
lslhg from the nature of the business
"ines before it, and the mode of pro-
- Inc action of the Court is not I
y ~. y we trial of cases brought reg
lslue IN the Circuit and ChanceTy
r;. Up the judge exercises general /
ma over the administration of ee-