The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1866-03-11


expressly made bis duty 10 require bond in
penalty at least equal 70 the value Of the
estate aud ii on the coming in Of the APP
praisement, or by other means, he is made
aware that he has failed 10 do 80, Il would
seem 10 be plainly incumbent upon him to
cito the administrator 10 give a new bond IN
a sufficient penalty.
la tile case Of Lehr vs.. Tarball. q Howard,
| 005,) Chief Justice Sharkey said, there Is
30 doubt bnt thatthe probate judge, with
out tho Intervention OF any party, may re-
move an administrator for coed cause" IL
this he NO, then lac may Of course, "of his
own motion aud accord cite the admins
traitor 10 appear, and require Of him the per-
| formance OF the duty, the noncompliance
| with which furnishes the good cause" for
| his removal. We do not think tho judge Of
| probate transcribed his Legitimate powers
| In recurring the administrator 70 give the
! bond now sued upon, but on the contrary
are OF the opinion that he only discharged
| plain duty.
There Is no objection to the form Of the
| hond Al the snreties in the first bond did
| not petition for relief, the giving of this
\ bond would not diecharge them from their
lpreyiOns undertaking.
" The Judgment of the Court below Will be
= affirmed, the Judgment for damages and
a costs i'm this Court to be entered only against
Il the executors of Bridges, who alone have
prosecuted this writ Of error and their sure
ties
Laoinda Deae Pinin eror appeal .t 159 I chan
Elijah q. Cooper, ct al perts. County,
Il opinion Of the Court deliyesed =. Judge
-lIapis. .ro, aled the;r mn i.
~ (sI,aneery Court OF Jasper county as
the inc Warren and heirs at law of Edward
tiie oa'', deceaaed (whO died on the 30th June,
D aan sa;nst The plaintiff in error, Lucinda
Iog T - An widow Of said decedent, to re-
,, pe''e ,ro gata share ofthe property ex-
COW srdn execution, as VII As of years
emps lhoni ,llnuva.,4 Tx laYHvliich was set
p rofisi~VNt tie appraisers pfpinted BY the
y ate Court of said county, and by them
,5a'the possession of said widow The
shows that two of the complainants are
lbfied women, and the other four are
ii MINORS, and none of them residing with the
widow. The Bill further shows that the
widow and plaintiff in error has four minor
children of her own, by decedent, residing
with her; that she holds and claims the
exempt property and allowance made for a
years provision for herself and her four
4 minor clildoen and refuses to deliver a pr0
Irata share thereof to their coiil iainants
Tie Bill further shows til the decedent
was possessed ola aFge ond personal
estate at his death, and u agreement of
counsel it is admitted that the widow re-
i nounced her interest under the will of de-
cedent, which was duly prolated as stated
I in the Bill
j The prayer Of the Bill is for decree that
4 the said widow pay TO eomplainants their
pro rata intuSest IN said prQs.efty so set aside,
y as well hire ofsa negro
- isaiaaEs and left
Possession OF the wid0W. Il further
yghe appointment of commissioner to
N account &c, or for such further or
lief, &c
us Of subpoena is prayed against the
1t is issued against the widow and
fen, and executed on the widow,
II and as guardian of her children,
Bill alledges her to be.
bill there was a demurrer fled as
& sysgfI4 two causes: First, that the Probate
Il Court had jurisdiction of the matter com
4 nlained OF; ana sAaOnd, that the Bill shows
4 that the propertS in the possession of the
I parties legally eiisKaedI to it.
The demurrer was oyerruled and the cause
brought here by appeal
4 In the case OF Womack VS. Boyd, 31st
| Miss r., page 453, III constituting some of the
provisions Of the act of Oct 1882 (very SINH
4 inr to the act Of 1860, under which these
| parties claim, we have held that this statute
ls.aalsin9 nA1.allowance Of a years provisions
for the support Of the widow and children
! of deeedent, does not provide in whit pro-
H portion the same shall he divided amongst
4 them, in case a division should be necessary
1 in snch case il would he the duty of the
Probate Court to make snch an apportion-
ment, as, under the circumstances, would be
Just and equitable, taking into considera-
| ton the sum necessary for the support
l Of each; and this may be done by
| the Court, directly, or through the
| agency of the commissioner appointed
1 to set apart the years. allowance. What is
4 here said Of the acts of 1852, is applicable to
the act of 1860. Ii follows from this view,
that the Probate Court is the proper tribunal
4ascertain and apportion to the widow and
% Alren neases like the present, according
nnNim tiOn and necessities the whole
gned for the support and main
tho families of deeedents Any
would utterly defeat and destroy
eent policy which the Legislature
w, In the passage and amendment
Aeral acts which are to he found on
te Books The Probate Court, while
jurisdiction over the subject
~ settle and adiudicate the rights
arties in interest, keeping In view,
pport of the widow and all the
Adecedent, and, second, so APP
joining the pE '.l,Idren ., re .e .tS
20 Of the widow sIl,leIeh I TssieG.nae
| IN as they may need its a.s.ss.,siye, and an
diction in this respect is excrisS, u1 ~
/ narties. claiming rights in suehIlppo,f.lohee
Ament. must be held to the preseiiia,lon ~
beif claims. before the report Of the apl'i,alie
rs shall have been confirmed by the fk'o''oo
rAnrf. unler the provisions of this aess %
kleenied to have waived them III iaVoA
ather heneiieiaries, whose claims are
hted
- the Cour4.pf Chancery, or any
"a assume Jurisdiction over the
- q nmfpose Of making pro rata
the fund to each of those
I'll not only oust the Probate
htinl Jurisdiction, but would
Of litigation as disastrous 70
kildren, as it would he
kpnd object Of the law.
Rnurrer 70 this bill
ned. and the bill