The Cheyenne daily leader. [volume] (Cheyenne, Wyo.) 1870-1884, 1875-01-08

to our own, in all that relates to he
judicial power OF the Territory.
Recently the case Of Cronyn &
Company va Nounann ct al, taken
from Utah Territory to the Supreme
Court OF the United States, in which
the question OF the power Of the
legislature TO confer jurisdiction in
civil actions in the Territories, was
passed upon and decided adversely.
The Supreme Court of the United
States held that the organic act was
intended to embrace and did embrace
within its provisions n complete form
of government for the Territory of
Utah that the Executive, Legislative
and Judicial Departments OF the Ter
territorial government were provided
for, and their powers and duties were
defined and understood. The Judicial
power was distributed among courts
named therein, and in the order in
which 1t appears. The supreme and
districts courts, in terms, were declared
to possess chancery as well as common
law jurisdiction and 1t was not com
petent for the legislative assembly to
disturb this order OF distribution by
comforting any common law or chan
Gerry powers on the probate court.
The judicial potCcr was rested by the
organic act In the courts named in 1t,
and in the manne therein prescribed
or so well understood, That to disturb
or change 1t was not a rightful subject
OF Territorial legislation. The probate
courts have no common law or chan
Gerry powers conferred upon them by
the terms OF the organic act. Nor did
courts of probate.ever have or exercise
such power In England or this coun-
try. No appeals or writs of error are
provided for from the decisions of the
probate courts. Neither are they con-
sidered courts OF records. Jury trials
are not usual In them.
The Supreme Court holds that the
probate courts OF the Territories were
intended to perform the functions of
the ecclesiastical courts of England,
relati We TO proving the last will and
testament Of deceased persons; the
appointment Of administrators for the
estate of deceased ...persons the APP
pointmcnt of guardians for orphans,
lunaties, &c, aud such other offices rs
were not discharged by the common
law courts. That within this general
idea of probate powers the legislature
might define the powers and prescribe
a.. I,,Nf,a ~ .-aI.N. L.. III |
not confer upon them civil Jurisdio-
ton to determine ordinary matters in
controversy. Justices of the Pescu
had a limited jurisdiction of this kind
conferred upon them "wherc the tide
of boundary to land was not in dis
pute, and where the debt or sun
claimed did not exceed one hundred
dollars Tho distinction between
these different courts was well defined,
and the purpose as well as Jurisdiction
of each was well known.
Probate courts were not intended to
hear matters iu dispute that were re-
quired TO be presented according to
the strict rules of pleading aud the
isspes raised by the pleadings to be
determined by a jury.
This is the first time the question
has been determined by the Supreme
Court of the United States. Kansas,
Idaho, Montana and Utah had de-
cided similarly years ago. 1t is now
settled definitely hat probate courts
in the Territories arc courts OF pro-
bate-as such courts are understood in
the Jurisprudence of England and the
United States-and cannot be made by
legislative action, civil or common law
courts. We will publish the opinion
at an early day.