Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1871-02-25
NASHVILLE UNIONAND AMERICAN SATURDAY. FEBRUARY21s7,

years be divided and paid over to the
person or persons to whom the same may
be due by law or by the viii of the de-
| ceased. ~ 81; s-r -
7 BY section 2, 2e5 we have the express
order of law for the taking and stating of
| The accounts of The executor or admins
traitor Immediately upon the expiration
of the two years; and by 2, 81 the direct
enactment for the payment, Immediately,
of the remaining estate to the persons en-
titled; the language of all these several
sections, being capable by no construc-
ton, of giving to the County Court any
other jurisdiction than that we have indi-
Gated, to be exercised in a summary way.
The word ''summarily,n used in the
statute, being interpreted, should be con-
strued in the same sense in which it is
used in motions against sheriffs, clerks,
etc., when the balances are readily ascer-
tanned from the record or execution.
The requirement of refunding bonds in
all cases was suggested by the fact, that
estates are frequently not wound up by
executors or administrators for years after
the expiration of the two years, because
of the pending of suits. The mention of
the Circuit and Chancery Courts in the
same sections cannot affect the question,
as the Chancery Court has jurisdiction,
Independent of the statute.
This construction harmonises the iurs-
diction of the different courts. L. was to
simplify the remedy in cases, the justice
of which was beyond controversy, and
that the Circuit and County Courts should
have jurisdiction in cases where there is
no litigation, to direct simple payment.
From the nature of its organization
and its general and inherent jurisdiction,
always exercised by court of chancery,
it is manifest the Legislature did not in
tend that cases of complication and diff
Guilty or dispute in the settlement of es-
tates should be determined elsewhere
than in that forum expressly created and
qualified for that purpose.
The case before us exemplifes and
amplifies the bad policy of liberal or
charging construction of statutes giving
jurisdiction to County Courts in matters
of complication.
Here we have two petitions and three
petitioners, each claiming specific legacy;
one that she is entitled to two notes of
two hundred and fifty dollars each. The
executor answers that she is not entitled
to the notes, bat merely to the proceeds,
or so much thereof as he can collect.
That this is the meaning of the will; which
is right, or whether either is, we are un-
able to say; the will not being part of the
record before US. To the second he says
| must have credits, or your legacy of one
hundred dollars; and TO the third, who
comes into court on his separate petition,
but asks to be, and is, made party to the
first; and who says he was paid his legacy
of one hundred dollars in Confederate
money when he was minor, and there
fare is not bound by it, the executor says
he denies this minority; that petitioners
brother signed paper as his security that
he would be bound by the payment, and
asks to have these matters inquired into.
Orders of reference to the Clerk for
accounts are had, but by some means
unexplained, the two first petitioners and
their claims are lost sight of, and we have
before us only the party who is contesting
his age and the Confederate money pay
ment with the executor.
The proceedings as to the petitioner be-
fore this court are dismissed he paying |
his costs, and the executor those of his
answer and proof.
TURNET, Judge.
A true, attest copy:
+. G. DUNNIEGTOH, Clerk.