Case Name: Ex parte Charles Haughton
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1832-12
Citations: 3 Dev. 441
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ex parte Charles Haughton.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
Ex parte Charles Haughton.
The Supreme Court lias no jurisdiction of an appeal from an order of the court beloiv, allowing- commissions to an administrator.
The case of Potter v. Stone, (2 llawlcs 30,) overruled.
This was an application to the County Court of Chowan, for an allowance of commissions to the administrator of Thomas B. Uaughton, deceased. The case commenced in the County Court, and came from the Superior Court of Chowan, upon the appeal of the next of kin. The facts attending the administration of the applicant, together with his accounts, were certified to this court, but need not be stated.
Iredell, upon opening the case for the next of kin, was asked by the Chief-Justice if it was not an appeal from the exercise of a discretionary power. The counsel cited Totter v- Stone. (2 Hawks 30.)
No counsel appeared for the other side.

Opinion:
Henderson, Chief-Justice.
This is an appeal from the discretion of the court below, to that of this court; from a court having the means ant! the power of examining into facts, to one having neither. We can only act ou facts, established either by the admissions of the parties, or the verdict of a jury. Except in equity cases, where we have a quasi original jurisdiction, this court has neither the power nor the means of ascertaining facts. And certainly, the commissions to be allowed an executor, administrator or guardian, depend on a great variety of facts. The nature and intricacy of the estate, the difficulty and labour of managing it, all ought to be inquired into; not the bare amount of the receipts and disbursements. This court therefore, has no jurisdiction. It is true, if the court below had allowed commissions, when by law none were due, or re-fused them when legally claimed, those, mistakes in the judgment may be corrected upon appeal ; but we perceive none such here. When we entertained jurisdiction, and decided the case of Patter v. Stone, the jurisdiction of the court had not been settled. It came close upon the heels of the old Supreme Court, a court of multifarious ¡lowers, in some cases having and exercising jurisdiction on the facts, in others restricted.
'Per Curiam. — Aureal dismissed.