The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1867-05-02
DECISIONS OF THE HIGH COURT
OF
ERRORS AND APPEALS.
OCTOBER TERM, 1866.
Anthony Neal & al.

Anthony Neal & al.
lO,260 VS..
w. C. May yell
Chief Justice Handy delivered tie
Opinion Of tile Court
The bill in this case states in substance,
that the complainant, the appellee here, was
appointed administrator de bonus non of the
estate of one James NJ Ronzie and in an
uary 1868, at the solicitation of the appel
lants, who were the distributes of the es-
tate, he distributed to them the assets of the
estate, amounting to 1886, and took from
them refunding bonds, conditioned to re-
fund to him such sum as might be required
TO pay any debts that might afterwards come
against the estate-whlch arrangement was
made privately between him and the distrib-
utees without any order of the Probate
Court But he retained in his hands 81, 300
Confederate money, for tho purpose of pay
ing a debt due one Healy from the estate;
which was done by the consent of the dis
tributes. This sum of money was collected
by the administrator in payment of note
due the deceased in his life time for the sale
of a tract of land and the Confederate
money was received when it was the COM
mon currency of the country and was be-
lieved to be good, and with the consent of
the distributes The debt of Healy has
now come against the estate, and the admin
istratOr has no funds to pay 1.-THE said
Confederate money being of no value; and
the bill prays decree against the distribu-
tees for the pro rata share of each of them to
be refunded to the complainant.
The defendants demurred to the bill on the
ground that no final settlement had been
made by the complainant in the Probate
Court and that that court has full jurisdic-
ton of the matter set up in the bill This
demurrer was overruled, and the defendants
have taken this appeal.
We think the demurrer was well taken
The right of the complainant to call on
the distributes to refund the money received
by them, of the assets of the estate, depended
primarily on the question, whether he was
ehargeable with the amount of the money
received by him in Confederate money. If
he was SO chargeable, it is clear that he had
no right to call on the distributes to refund
the money they had received, when he had
retained in his hands assets of the estate for
which he received Confederate money and
which, If collected in good funds, would
have been sufficient to pay the debt which
was outstanding against the estate. The
bill in this case. therefore, in substanee
asks the aid of Court of Equity TO allow
him credit for this sum Of Confederate
money, and to compel the distributes to
refund, of the assets distributed TO them, an
amount sufficient to pay the outstanding
debt.
The question whether he was ehargeable
or not, was one peculiarly appropriate to the
court Of probate, and which a court of equity
has no Jurisdiction to determine. When
the administrator settles that question in
the Court of Probate, and it is there deter
mined that he is entitled to credit to the
amount Of the Confederate monty received
by him, il will be time enough for him 10
proceed against the distribution which,
for aught that appears in this bill, he may do
in the Court Of PrObates, OF at law on the
refunding bonds
But it is very clear that he is entitled to
no remedy in any Court, against the dis
tributes. until be shall have been discharged
on account Of the Confederate money in the
Court Of Probates.
The decree must, therefore, be reversed,
the demurrer sustained and the bib dis
missed