Johnson v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 31 January 1876
• Citation: 56 Ga. 326
• Parties: John M. Johnson et al., plaintiffs in error. v. Wyche S. Jackson, administrator, et al., defendants in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

56 Ga. 326

John M. Johnson et al., plaintiffs in error. v. Wyche S. Jackson, administrator, et al., defendants in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, January Term, 1876.)

[Jackson, Judge, being related to the parties plaintiff in error, did not preside.]

*Administrators and executors. Jurisdiction. Bonds. Venue. Comity. Before Judge Buchanan. Troup Superior Court. November Term, 1875.

Reported in the decision.

B. H. Bigham; Jackson & Lumpkin, for plaintiffs in error.

F. M. Longley, for defendants.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs as the heirs and distributees of H. T. Erwin, deceased, against Wyche S. Jackson, administrator of said Erwin, and his securities on his administration bond, in the county of Troup, all the defendants being alleged to be of said county, except Jones, who is alleged to be of the county of Baker in this state. The plaintiffs allege in their declaration that Jackson was appointed administrator on Erwin's estate by the probate court of Chambers county, in the state of Alabama, in the year 1859, and then and there the defendants executed the bond sued on, conditioned for the faithful performance of his duty as such administrator. The plaintiffs also allege that as such administrator he possessed himself of the estate of said Erwin of the value of $75,000 00, and has wasted and appropriated the same to his own use. The plaintiffs also allege that they brought suit in the superior court of Troup county against said Jackson, as administrator aforesaid, for an account and settlement, and obtained a decree against him for the sum of $1,596 95, besides interest and costs, in that court; that no part of said decree has been paid; that a fieri facias has been issued thereon, and a return of nulla bona has been made thereon by the sheriff of Troup county; all of which the plaintiffs allege as a breach of his bond, and now seek to recover the amount of said decree from the defendant and his securitieson his aforesaid administration bond. The defendants *demurred to the plaintiff\'s declaration, and made a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs\' action on the ground that the superior court of Troup county had no jurisdiction of thecase, which demurrer and motion the court sustained, and the plaintiffs excepted.

There was no point made that the defendants had not been regularly served with process as required by the laws of this state.

1. The question made and insisted on here was, that the court had no jurisdiction of the case because the administrator had been appointed by the probate court of the state of Alabama, and that the bond sued on had been taken by that court in that state, and must be sued on there, and could not be sued on in the courts of this state, although the defendants might be personally liable to be sued here. Whatever may have been the decisions of the other courts in relation to the question of jurisdiction in this class of cases, (and it is conceded they are conflicting,) still, if it was an original question in this court, I should hold that it was controlled by the constitution and laws of this state, so far as our own courts are concerned. By the constitution, the superior courts of this state have jurisdiction of all civil cases, except as therein otherwise provided. The sovereignty and jurisdiction of the state, and the laws thereof, extend to all persons while within its limits, whether as citizens, denizens or temporary sojourners: Code, section 21. A citizen of another state passing through this state may be sued in any county thereof in which he may happen to be at the time when sued: Code, section 3416. The provisions of the law are general and include executors and administrators as well as all other persons; there is no exception made in favor of executors and administrators, or securities on their bonds. If they come within the jurisdictional limits of the state, they may be sued in any county in the state in which they may happen to be at the time when sued. The policy of the state is to furnish her own people with a remedy to recover their rights in her own courts, without compelling them to go into a foreign jurisdiction to obtain *their lawful and just claims. These principles were fully recognized by this court in Maxwell v. Seymour, Fannin & Company, 30 Georgia Reports, 440, in...