Case Name: W. C. Harrington and wife v. Adeleni Mobbley et al.
Court: High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1857-04
Citations: 33 Miss. 34
Docket Number: 
Parties: W. C. Harrington and wife v. Adeleni Mobbley et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 34–35

Head Matter:
W. C. Harrington and wife v. Adeleni Mobbley et al.
Chancery: vice-chancery court: plea to jurisdiction. — If the subject-matter of a bill filed in one of the Vice-chancery Courts, be within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Chancery, a plea to the jurisdiction ought not to be sustained; the defendant’s remedy is, to apply, within the time prescribed by the statute, to have the cause removed to the Superior Court of Chancery.
In error to the District Chancery Court at Carrollton. Hon.' Henry Dickinson, vice-chancellor.
The plaintiffs in error filed their bill in the Northern District Chancery Court, at Carrollton, against the defendants, Thomas T. Lund, John 0. Mobbley, and Adeleni Mobbley, all whom were not residents, and were served with notice by publication in a newspaper. The object of the bill was to set aside a sale of certain lands situated in Holmes county in this State. At the time the suit was instituted, Holmes county was not a part of the vice-chancery district for which the court was held at Carrollton, but was a part of the Middle Chancery District, the court of which is held at Yazoo city.
The defendant appeared and filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the Yice-chancery Court at Carrollton. The vice-chancellor sustained the plea and dismissed the bill, and the complainant sued out this writ of error.
W. Brooke, for plaintiff in error,
Cited Trotter v. JErwin, 27 Miss. E. 772. •
J. M. Dyer, for defendants in error,
Cited 4 Munroe E. 434; 1 J. J. Marsh. 474; Pirtles Dig. p. 23, § 34; 2 J. J. Marsh. 143; 3 lb. 592; Hutch. Dig. p. 776.

Opinion:
Fisher, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a bill filed in the Yice-chancery Court at Carrollton.
The court sustained a plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the bill, from which decree this writ of error is prosecuted.
It appears from the pleadings that the Superior Court of Chancery could have entertained jurisdiction of the subject-matter in controversy, and this being the case, and neither party applying to remove the cause into the Superior Court of Chancery, the plea to the jurisdiction could not be sustained under the decision in the case of Trotter v. Erwin, 27 Miss. R. 776.
Decree reversed, and cause remanded.