The weekly Panola star. [volume] (Panola, Miss.) 1857-1881, 1866-09-08

iarlnia Nundiy w &C., N NJ
es William faieif sai wife. 80
rfM from the Probate taui uf
FmnklIu ruunly.
ll1u W r. Harris delivered NE
uwnlm n ihe Court
The defendants IN effof flcl their
PETITION IN iht pfahlif tonft apninsi
lbo Appellants and otliru, legaiecs
and disifihuiprl ~ Ne estate n III
delou Mnnday, deceased. prying
disiribuilon and payment ~ petition.
efH N The several Sums ~ money
specified IN thc petition os duo 10
petitioners There was answer dled
for W " Baldwin, one Of the exec.
ntots, which via rejected Nv the
court leeauao u WIS not sworn N
There was also plea filed 10y the
cxccutriS aud executors which was
adiudgcd insufficient and the said
eSccuifix and executors were required
to answer further. The same iudg.
mcnt pronouncing The answer insult.
ciont, rccitcs that defendants having
failed 10 answer said petition, upon
motion, o decree pro c0gicaeo, against
the eSccutrlS and executors was rem
dcrcd and thcreupon without fur
thcr proceedings or proof, aud with
out an account, a final decree was
rendered against the said George W.
Sellers, Lucinda Munday, aud viii
liam II. Baldwin, for tho sum Of
sll, 100 2l-000.
This appeal Is prosecuted to revise
this Judgment. The LIST, ID, 81, and
18th assignments of error relate TO the
action Of court upon the suflicicncy
of the pleading mentioned, the an
swer and the plea appearing in the
record.
In the case of Crowdcr, ct al. VS..
Shackleford, ct al, 35th Miss. X. p,
32l, 1866, which was a proceeding for
distribution under the statute, the
court has said, "that the statute does
not contemplate or require the pro-
! ceeding by which the administrators
accountability is to be asccrtined, TO
be conducted according to the strict
rules Of pleading. In case of con-
troversy as TO the amount for which
the administrator should account, il
, would be the duty Of the court TO re-
quire an account, upon the same
, principles upon which final account
, is taken; the object in both case.
, being TO ascertain the true amount
/, with which the administrator !,
: chargeable, and no formality of plead.
. ing is necessary in taking such Al
, account"
And in French VS.. Davis, 3Stl
/, Miss. II. =. 1877, il is held that, "pe
titions for distribution Of estates ar,
informal, and not regulated by tech
9 nical rules; and il is competent fo
q either party to introduce such evi
i dence in proceedings Of this charac
/, acter as may be necessary to show
!, what Judgment shall be rendered
r without regular and formal pleadings
The 9th assignment Of error j
that the court erred in rendering
4 final judgment against defendant
4 below without requiring refundinI
! bond nth security, and withou
i naming or specifying the security b
= be given.
. In the case before us, a refnndin
! bond is required by the decree, no
specifying that security should b
e given, or the name of any sccuritic,
In the case of French VS.. Dayi,
. already cited, it is held that deere
: of this character is not erroneous, 70
i not requiring a refnnding bond. Tn
effect of such decree, is to ordc
= distribution according to law, and
4 made before final settlement, IL can
not be enforced until a refundin
bond is executed.
/ The 9th, 7th, sth and 9th assign
L mcnts Of error, relate to the insult
/. cheney of the service of process. Th
!. statute requires that "the distribr
/, tion Of personal estate shall be ol
N dered and made in the same mann,
II and subject to the same regulation
Is as real estate descended" Code,
I. 454, art. ll8. Article III, on san
J. page, in relation TO "real estate" n
IN quires that "the dcvisces or heirs
J. the guardians of such as arc und'
a age, residing in this State, shall
,e first summoned, before any deer
10 and distribution is made;" and az
er 81, p. 46l, makes provisions for cas-
N of minors who have no guardian,
at when the guardian is personally il
O. tcrested.
is, Under these provisions, no val
es decree can be made for distributio
,le unless these parties in interest a
ed properly summoned.
e In the case before us, with the G
Ist ceptions Of the executrix and exec
Sc tors who appeared in court, but fe'
C il any, Of the parties made defen
en- ants, land four of whom are minon
ho were duly summoned, as appears
he the returns Of the sheriff, on the diff
ire ent citations issued. The decree wi
pit therefore, void on this ground.
as Tho 10th assignment relates TO I
~, decree. This was certainly erroneo'
t's II was made without an account, al
re- ~ithOut r-qof Of 81: 80; ss:, .S:. - % .as s
ur tho record shows, ascertaining I
nd estate In the hand Of the executr
el- and executors, 70 bo distributed.
ay In the case Of Crowder vs.. Shack
YER ford, 35th Miss., p. 354, this ubj'
m Is fully discussed, and the rules 10
/ observed under this statute, in pi
ny cecdings for distribution, are cleai
for defined,
re- An account should have be
.aa faLou auI tba an,a,,.t nnI aha raeti