The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-02-01
THE SUPREME COURT
AN IMPORTANT DECISION AS IT,
 CHANCERY JURISDICTION.
It ts Held That Legislature Has Power to Confer tt on Circuit Gourts--Other De-
 cfaf0ne.

The Alabama Supreme. Court yester. day upheld the constitufionality of the act of the Legislature comforting chan cery Jurisdiction upon the Jefferson county Circuit Court. The opinion came Tn the case of the Ensley Deyel- opment Company. ct ais, vs Chas. B Foweli as guardian, appealed from the Jenerson County Circuit Court and Justice R. T. simpson Is the author.
 On account of the fact that the uues- tions at issue in the case seemed fo call for a review of the constitutional history oi Alabama on the subject of court Jurisdiction of various kinds. the opinion was rather lengthy. The effect of the decision was to authorize inc Legislature to give chancery jurisdio court 's s.4sNss Tn the discussion of the contentious of both sides in the case, Justice simp- son went back to the original consti- tution of 1s19 and traced the history of provisions as to chancery jurisdie. ton. It has been a gradual evolution and there seems to have prevailed, ac- cording to the record, general idea that the Legislature has the power to place the chancery Jurisdiction where needed.
 Our own constitutional history on this subject says Justice simpson, snows that 1t has not been considered at all incongruous to confer chancery Jurisdiction on the Circuit Court,p
 The act which was attacked in par- ticular by the appellant was passed at the legislative session Of ISg4-iS95 Last year the platntiff. c. B. Powell, guardian for one of the stockholders in tho Ensley Development Company. made an application for an injuncti against the corporation and for a re- eniVArahin Tho fsafs ed and receiver was appointed The injunction was granted by the Judge or the Jefferson County Circuit Court. The development company appealed on two grounds. ono based on what was alleged to be the unconstitutionality of the act giving the court chancery pow CTS, and the other for the reason that the application was granted and the re- cetveT appointed during court vacation.
 While the Supreme Court unanirnous- fy upheld the special act 1t did not de- eide the case In favor of the plaintiff but. on the contrary, reversed the judg- ment of the lower court, directed that all money and property that had chang ed hands through the receiver be turn ed over to the development company and the cause was remanded for anoth- CT hearing to the lower court. It was held that there was not legal notice III bu6 CA pdTLt pEOCcSuluBS UT the re- ceiyership given to the officers of the development company.
 The list of decisions handed down yesterday was as follows:
 Tyson, J.:
 J. J. Bledsoe, administratorrvs Win ston Jones, appeal from Marengo Chan cery Court; affirmed.
 DowdeH. J.;
 Southern Railway Company vs Will liam w. Nelson, apeal from Limestone Circuit Court; affirmed,
 Simpson, J .s
 Ensley Development Company ct al. vs. Charles B. Powell as guardian, ap- peal from Jefferson Circuit Court; re- versed. rendered and renianded.
 Anderson, T.:
 Thomas F. Goodwin as Judge, etc, vs. the State. ex rel P. R. Wakefield. ct al, appeal from Fayette Circuit Court; reversed and rendered.
 The Court will continue today to re- ceive submissions from the Eighth Di- vision.