Opinion ID: 1710574
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The scope of the circuit court's jurisdiction.

Text: In Cawker v. Dreutzer [1] this court said: [U]nless it is made to appear that the county court before which an estate is being administered cannot afford as adequate, complete and efficient a remedy as the circuit court, the circuit court should not assume jurisdiction, and to do so will be treated as reversible error. In the present case Thorp recognizes that it must demonstrate that its remedy in probate court would be inadequate or inefficient, but it fails to make such a showing. One of the cases cited by the appellant in support of the proposition that the circuit court should have accepted jurisdiction to avoid multiplicity of suits, Burnham v. Norton, [2] was modified by Cawker. [3] Other cases cited by appellant are Cannon v. Berens, [4] involving an action against a number of defendants who could not be reached by the county court's jurisdiction; and Milwaukee v. Drew, [5] involving multiple parties beyond the jurisdiction of the county court who sought a remedy not available in probate court. Neither situation is presented here. There are no multiple parties as to the first cause of action and the relief sought against the administratrix is available in the probate court. Thorp is pursuing that remedy. It has not shown that the relief available in the probate court is inadequate or inefficient. Therefore, the circuit court properly sustained the demurrer to the first cause of action.