The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1880-11-06
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
reported weekly by y. w. jenkins
AttOrney-Rt-IRW,
ocronrR TERN. 1850.

) NANCY HUNT, Exccutrix, 7
q US.
WILEY II. POTTER, Admr. J
Appeal from the Chanccry Court, Is
District Kinds county, Hon. f., G. Peytol
: Chancellor.
George j.. Potter, an Attorney at Law
was employed by +. S. Hunt, to defond ,
suit for $4,000 brought by the Unitec
States Government against the latter ano
the sureties on his Official boud as Internal
Revenue Collector. Hunt died pending
the litigation, and Potter thereafter con-
tinued his attention to the case without
objection from the personal represents
tives of the estate.
There was no agreement rs to the fee to
be paid and Potter being now dead, his
administrator filed bill against the
eXccutrx of Hunt in the Chancery Court
of the LIST District of Kinds county, in
which the estate of Hunt is being admins
tered, for the purpose of having the
amount of Pottcr's fee settled by the
Chancellor upon II qaant"m me'W" wlthra
decree for its payment.
II was objected by demurrer TO the bill
that the remedy is in court of law ana
not in court of equity.
The demurrer was Ovcrruled and the
defendant appealed.
Frank Johnston for appellant.
NJ. Green for appellee.
CHALMERS, G. j..
HeId-
/. The question presented is whether by
} 97G of the Code of 1871 the Chancery
Court, in which an estate is being admin
stercd, is given jurisdiction to near ana
determine purely legal demands agalst IL,
and by decree to direct their payment.
We hold in Clopton vs.. Horton, o. MISS,
1877, that jurisdiction was by this section
conferred in behalf of creditors, whose
claims had been reduced to judgments, to
compel their payment, butwe pretermltted
the question whether Il creditor ut large
could, by virtue of the section referred to,
have the validity and amount OF his de,
mand adjudicated in the court which had
granted administration of the estate ana
was engaged in winding it up. This ques-
ton we now meet ana we answer IL Ill
the affirmative.
9. "The power and jurisdiction" IS
given not only 'to hear and determine all
questions in relation to the execution OF
the trusts" by the tiduclaries to whom
they have been committed, and call de-
mailds against the same" chat is to say all
demands against said tiduciaries) but also
''to hear and determine all demands"
against "such Estates" that is to say,
against the estates by them being admin
istered.)
3. The explicit deduction is that the
court which has granted administration OF
an estate shall be open to hear the com
plants of all persons interested in 1T both
for the purpose of compelling due per-
formunce Of duty by the administrator
and of determining the justice of all de-
mands propounded against it.
4. 1t still remains optional with the
creditor, however, whether he will avail
himself of the new jurisdiction, or whether
he will first reduce his demand to Judgment
in court of law and then file it for allow
ance in court of chancery.
3. 1t will be observed that the jurisdic-
ton is by the statute limited to demands
agd5RSt estates, and does not extend TO
demands of estates against living persons:
1t is possible, too. that the word demands"
though exceedingly broad in its signitca-
ton, should be held as not extending to
demands arising er delicto, but should be
limited to the several classes of demands or
claims mentioned in subsequent sections
of the chapter, to-wit: judgments ana
DEGREES in 2 1887; rccognizances, balls,
speclalties, notes, bonds, bills of exchange
sc in , 1888; leases in $780, and open
accounts in 1140, or generally to demands
arising ca cOntractu. Upon this subject,
however, we express no definite opinion.
Decree affirmed and sixty days given to
answer.
George j., deliycrcda concurring opinion.