Pate v. Taylor

• Citation: 66 Miss. 97,5 So. 515
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 14 January 1889
• Parties: J. B. PATE ET AL. v. C. E. TAYLOR, ADMR

5 So. 515

66 Miss. 97

J. B. PATE ET AL. v. C. E. TAYLOR, ADMR

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 14, 1889

FROM the chancery court of the second district of Panola county HON. J. G. HALL, Chancellor.

The appellee, C. E. Taylor, was administrator of an estate in Panola county. At a sale made by him as such administrator J. B. Pate & Co., merchants, doing business at Water Valley Yalobusha county, bought certain personal property, amounting in value to two hundred and eighteen dollars and twenty-five cents. The sale was made some distance from the railroad, and the property was delivered to the purchasers on their agreeing to deposit the purchase-money in the bank at Water Valley to the credit of the administrator. The money was so deposited and a certificate accordingly was given to the administrator. For some reason, the amount was not paid, and the administrator filed a petition in the chancery court of Panola county, in which the administration of the estate was pending, alleging the above facts. Pate & Co. and the Bank of Water Valley were made parties defendant and a decree was asked for the amount of the purchase-money. The residence of the defendants is not stated, but it is alleged that the place of business of each was in Water Valley. The defendants demurred, and from a final decree in favor of the administrator this appeal is prosecuted.

Decree reversed and petition dismissed.

I. T Blount, for appellants.

The defendants not residing in nor being found in Panola county, the court had no jurisdiction. Section 1834 of the code does not give to the chancery court of that county jurisdiction to bring in people from all parts of the state to litigate, simply because the estate is being administered there. That section confers jurisdiction on the chancery court in cases involving an execution of the trusts of the administrator and in some others; but there was no more authority to entertain this suit than there would be in an action of replevin to recover possession of personal property of the intestate.

S. C. Cook, for appellee.

The jurisdiction of the chancery court in matters of this character is fixed by the statute, and it is only considered necessary to refer to the same as authority for this suit.

OPINION

ARNOLD, C. J.

The suit was commenced in the second district of the chancery court of Panola county, but it is not alleged or shown that either of the defendants resided...