Case Name: Edgar O. Durfee, probate judge v. Truman A. Dean et al.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1884-01-15
Citations: 52 Mich. 387
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edgar O. Durfee, probate judge v. Truman A. Dean et al.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 52
Pages: 387–388

Head Matter:
Edgar O. Durfee, probate judge v. Truman A. Dean et al.
Action on administrator’s bond — Scire facias.
1. An action by tbe probate judge upon an administrator’s bond cannot ' be brought in a justice’s court when the penalty of the bond exceeds the jurisdictional limit of such court, and when judgment for the whole is sought so that the writ of scire facias may be resorted to on farther breaches. How. St. § 6003.
3. Assumpsit will lie in justice’s court upon an ordinary money bond for any amount within its jurisdiction that may be necessary to indemnify for the breach thereof, whatever the penalty of the bond may be.
Error to Wayne. (Chambers, J.)
Jan. 10.
Jan. 15.
Debt on bond. Defendants bring error.
Affirmed.
Moore dé Moore for appellants.
George il. Preniis for appellee.

Opinion:
Cooley, C. J.
This action was upon an administrator's bond, to recover moneys which by an order of the probate court the administrator had been directed to pay to one of the heirs. The penalty of the bond was one thousand dollars ; the amount found to be due under the order was forty-five dollars. The judgment rendered was for the penalty, and execution was awarded for the amount so found due with costs of suit. The sole error assigned is the award of costs.
It is argued that the controversy was within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, and the case should not therefore have been brought in the circuit court. If the bond had been an ordinary money bond, the obligee might have brought assumpsit upon it in justice's court for any amount within the jurisdiction of that court, irrespective of the amount named in the bond as the penalty. But when a probate bond is sued, the judgment for the penalty stands as security in case of further breaches, and other parties than the party first suing may iiave scire facias upon it. How. St. § 6003. This suit could not therefore have been brought in justice's court.
The judgment must be affirmed with costs.
The other Justices concurred.