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

'Hfi'f FfHFf##if HHH ~ Hf#i
faunfy
fhh depeni Hfsm ile pfler ep.
NfuHllon III " fHl ntHH Eff 8ff fhe
mwef NJ M IaelsliiHft Il t#Hshf
Ne administration II tha falaia hum
illndf eHnlY a. tapah smnfg,
either with ~ wtham conditions,
W. WI deuied N ibf afgamtnl sni
euuld hardly b. aneetsshllIg disputed
Aa attentive consideration n fhe
languagr N ihe aci IN question,
shows olHfly that ihe mHmonni
axti nod inioniion If The frgislas
lnfifo wls ~ transfer The flminIsifa.
iion from Gne eunif A. ihe mhef,
and that tlif provisions In relation io
The transmission NJ the record. afe
only nusilIafy ~ the main inieni.
aud were designed ~ afford The roufi
10 Cupihh The munus u acting intel
lgonlly IN thc administration. Sumc
foundation wns necessary ~ he laid,
for tho exercise ~ Jurisdiction, aud
The duty " laying that foundation
WIS dcyolyed by aet upon The Judges
uf The two courts II was made tho
duty Of one Of them io transfer and
transmit the record. and VI the other
10 receive aud record IL. This duty
these officers undertook In good faith
to discharge. They were obliged 10
determine for Themselves, in the first
instance, what was required of them.
The one did transfer and transmit
such a transcript rs in his Judgment
fulfilled the demands of the law. The
other received It, and BY an order
entered in the minutes Of his court,
directed il 10 be filed for record, and
thereby adjudgcd II TO be q compli-
ancc with the statute. II did contain
all that related 10 the administration
Of Harris, but itnemitted the pro-
ccedings that had taken place during
the administration of Mrs. Learned.
There is no suggestion that the
omission was willhil or fraudulent.
A strict and literal Interpretation Of
the act, perhaps, contemplated that
all these proceedings would have been
sent, but q failure to do 80 cannot be
held to oust the court OF the juris-
diction which il was plainly intended
to confer upon ii. The argument Of
the plaintiffs goes 10 the full extent
that the omissions of a single paper,
or of a single entry, or any error in
transcribing any Of the proceeding,
would render all the acts Of the Pro
bate Court Of Copiah county abso-
lutely void, though the administra.
ton might have been conducted thcr,
for years, and the most important
rights vested under il. II is CRAFTY.
ing that our duty does not require US
to give our sanction to such a propo-
sition. We think, on the contrary
that the Probate Court Of Copiai
county become invested with iuris.
diction over the administration o
the estate of Learned, by virtue o
, the operation Of the act of the Legis
laturc, and that its power was not i'm
paired by the omission Of litera
compliance with the directions Of til,
statute in reference TO the transmits
sion Of the record.
2. The second ground Of objection
: to the jurisdiction Of the court 4
make the order of sale is this; tina
the petition Of Harris, filed April .
lSli, praying an order for the sale o
the real estate of Learned, was final
, " dismissed rs 90 the lands in Copial
county at June term, 1871, aud tina
the subsequent proceedings had ol
said petition, by citation returnabl
to August term, 1884, and the de
cree then made for the sale Of III
land, were and are for that reason
, coram non jadice, and void.
: This point, though much presse'
in the argument here, is not show
! by the record to have been raised il
G the Court below. Moreover il ap
pears to be based upon an erroneou
view of the facts of the case. Takin
: the whole record together, the histor
: Of the proceedings seem TO be this
On the 10Th Of April, 1911, llarri
: administrator dc boHis non, ,
!, Learned, filed his petition represent
| ing that the personal estate Of Learne
was insufficient to pay the debts an
b praying an order for the sale Of III
: real estate of said deceased. On th
0 petition an order was made, that citr
ton issue TO all persons interested |
@ appear at June term, 1871, and sho
4 cause against an order for the sale I
c sections 0 and 0, and part Of Il
: township 10, range I east, in Copia
' county, and also a town lot IN u
city Of jackson. None Of The lan
o in controversy was embraced in th
b order.
+ Al June term, 1871, nm order vi
made, reciting that on the 10th
: April, 1871, Harris had filed his al
Il plicaiion for an order 10 sell the saI
y sections 9 and 0 and part Of IL
Il Copiah county, and the lot in JacI
n son; thai citation had been ordere
% and that due proof Of ei,itation h'
# been made; and that thereupon WI
Il Barnes, administrator Of n. Re
:. nolds, had filed objections to q
/ granting Of the order Of sale Of q
W lands above described lying in G
It piah county, which objections we
nr considered valid and sufficient, Al
Of the said application, 50 far as relat
v, TO the land lying In Copiah count
70 was dismissed, and an order "
ID made for the sale of the lot in Jac
b. son.
m II thus appears that the apple
to ton was narrowed down by the