The weekly Panola star. [volume] (Panola, Miss.) 1857-1881, 1866-06-16

HHff HFf#f H##H Hf#fH HHHtfHHHfNl FNffN
Gtna " lhfnas administrators M
Haaan IiegHakla. FLEA ais irms ~
NJ granting n ths aFHff ff lhe mle
n lla lAnA4 aleNe AsafIlNd lyinv
N toplHh nmhly. WhHh M3fflianl
wefa considered III ihs fuuH ~ valid
sol sufficient. ahd II wba therefore
0fdeftd ~ ihs court that ibs sppli
oaiioh, - IN as u ftlaied ~ M lind
10 Coplah emniY. IT, dismis.el and
that the sli'l administrator le suihm
i,ed r. iall iIe fewn lol In ihe oiiy NJ
jackson.
AZ June term, 1917, without auy
further showing n iho inmfhcioncy
n ihe personal estate, r. citation wv.
ordered and 1T September tenn, 1879,
a sale was deefeed n md u VT
fourteen In The town of Gallaiin.
fhen follows In the record, the
order made nj Iuur term. 1876, under
which The land 10 controversy was
soh
10 show that a foil record has not
been iransmittedsto Copiah county.
as required by the act Of the Iegis-
laturc, plaintiffs gave in evidence a
transcript Of all The proceedings In
the Probate Court Of IIinds county,
showing that the widow Of Learned
had been appointed his administn-
trix at October term, 1887, and had
administered the estate until her let
tcrs were revoked In March, 1880.
In May, 1888, she had represented
that the personal estate was INSULT
cicnt to pay the debts, and had
prayed an order for the sale Of the
real estate, but no proceeding appears
to have been taken upon IL. AT jan
uary term, 1899, she made full re-
port Of the debts and assets Of the
estate, showing that the real and per-
sonal estate, were insufficient to pay
the debts, and thereupon the court
had declared the estate insolvcnt and
had appointed commissioners to
receive and report claims. No further
step appears to have been taken with
view TO the distribution of the
estate among the creditors.
The plaintiffs also offered copy
I of the bond Of Harris as administra.
tor de bonis non, certified by th,
clerk of the Probate Court of Hind,
county, on the 22d day of August
1860, who states in his certificate thai
the "said original bond is now on fl,
and record in my Office"
The evidence being closed, tn
; plaintiffs, in pursuance Of the agree
; ment, moved the court to rule out al
J the evidence ON the part of the de
fendant on the following grounds
to-wit:
lst. The special act of the Legis
, lature for the relief of Buckner Har
ris, is unconstitutional and void, bein.
, in conflict with section Is, article 4
of the constitution of the State.
I'd. The said act confers the pow
ers upon the Judge, and not upon tn
Probate Court Of Copiah county.
! 3. The Probate Judge of Hind
county did not transfer and transmi
to the Probate Judge of Copiah
full and complete copy of the recorC
of all the proceedings had in relation
to the estate of Learned, togcthe
with the original administration bone
of Harris.
4th. The appointment Of Harri
was void, because the record does no
, show any fact giving jurisdiction Il
, the Probate Court of Kinds county
TO grant administration in chief 4
the widow OF Learned.
9th. The sale was imperative
because never reported to or con
! frmcd By the Probate Court.
This motion was overruled. Tn
case went to the jury without instruc
tions, and n verdict having bee
found for the defendant, the motioI
made for n new trial was likewis
, oyerruled.
The question Of the constitutions
: power Of the Legislature to pass th
i'act for the relief Of Buckncr Har
ris," under the operation Of whic
this case has arisen, was cxprcssl
, waived on the argument in this Court
! and the objections to the jurisdiction
, Of the Probate Court Of Copia
county to decree the sale under whic
{ the defendant holds the land in con
I ltrovcrsy, were rested entirely on tw
} grounds.
/. The first Of these is that III
Probate Judge Of Kinds county di
: not transfer and transmit TO III
e Judge Of the Probate Court Of &c
a plan county a full and complete cop
c of the record of all the proceeding
c had in Hinds county in relation
3 the estate Of Learned, together wit
c the original administration bond er
tered into by Harris.
e The argument in support Of th
objection l., that the jurisdiction ,
: the Probate Court Of Copiah count
, was derived from the special act
4 the Legislature; that the transfer
= the jurisdiction from the Proba
!, Court Of Iinds was the execution
Il a power created by law; and thi
= such power must be executed strictl
! in the mode pointed out by the sta
= ute; and authorities are cited to sho
Ie that equity will not relieve again
d the defective execution Of a pow
le created by law. The principle is
at very general application that, at la
d every naked power, properly
D. called, must be strictly executed, al
ie all prescribed formalitics duly o
" served. II prevails not only betwe
he private persons, but applies also