Case Name: State ex rel. John Ringling North, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of John Ringling, Deceased, et al., Relators, v. Honorable George W. Whitehurst as Judge of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Sarasota County, Florida, and United States of America, Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1940-12-03
Citations: 145 Fla. 559
Docket Number: 
Parties: State ex rel. John Ringling North, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of John Ringling, Deceased, et al., Relators, v. Honorable George W. Whitehurst as Judge of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Sarasota County, Florida, and United States of America, Respondents.
Judges: Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J, J., concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 145
Pages: 559–562

Head Matter:
State ex rel. John Ringling North, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of John Ringling, Deceased, et al., Relators, v. Honorable George W. Whitehurst as Judge of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Sarasota County, Florida, and United States of America, Respondents.
1 So. (2d Series) 175
En Banc
Opinion Filed December 3, 1940
On Application to Clarify Supreme Court’s Order, January 10, 1941
Rehearing Denied April 4, 1941
Henry L. Williford, James E. Kirk, John F. Burket, for Relators;
George Couper Gibbs, Attorney General, John L. Graham, and Lawrence A. Truett, Assistant Attorneys General, for Respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Upon consideration of the suggestion of above named relators for writ of prohibition:
The application for writ of prohibition will be denied because we cannot say there is any ground for equitable relief stated in the bill of complaint. We do not intend to intimate that we hold that the circuit court has jurisdiction to appoint receiver to supersede and oust the executors appointed by the county judge as judge of probate or to oust the jurisdiction of thp county judge to adjudicate questions exclusively in the jurisdiction of the probate court.
The writ of prohibition is denied.
Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J, J., concur.
On Application To Clarify Supreme Court's Order
Per Curiam.
This cause is before us on application of respondent to clarify that portion of our order of December 3, 1940, wherein we said: "We do not intend to intimate that we hold that the circuit court has jurisdiction to appoint receiver to supercede and oust the executors appointed by the county judge as judge of probate." .
The matter of ousting or removing executors is a matter within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the probate court under the provisions of the 1933 Probate Act. Such jurisdiction of the probate court may not be assumed or exercised by the court of chancery. This is true, although the court of chancery may, as a step ancillary to exercise of some recognized equity jurisdiction over certain peculiar and particular property in the hands, of an administrator or executor, appoint a receiver to assume possession and control of that property because of a receivership of that particular property being necessary for its preservation as an asset in the hands of the administrator or executor. The administrator or executor must be recognized as continuing as such until discharge by the probate court.
Where administrators or executors are charged with being guilty of fraud, mismanagement or waste in the administration of an estate the probate court has complete power and jurisdiction to determine such questions subject to review by the circuit court and then by the Supreme Court under the provisions of the 1933 Probate Act.
Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Chapman, J., concurs specially.