Brunini v. Pera

Chancery. Jurisdiction. Suit on administrator's bond. The Chancery Court has jurisdiction of a bill to enforce against an administrator and the sureties on his bond for the application of the proceeds of a sale of land, the amount previously found due the heirs as such proceeds on final settlement. Bank of Mississippi v. Duncan, 52 Miss. 740, and Walker v. State, 53 Miss. 532, affirmed.

Appeal from the Chancery Court of Warren County. Hon. Upton M. Young, Chancellor. Alexander Brunini, the duly qualified administrator of Frank Pera, having, on decree for the sale of the real estate, given bond, with J. Sanguinetti and L. M. Lowenberg as sureties, for the proper application of the proceeds, Maria Speranza Pera, Maria Chelini, and Frediano Chelini her husband, as heirs of Frank Pera, petitioned the Chancery Court of Warren County for a final settlement of Brunini’s accounts, and obtained a decree for $3,630.41, of which $3,410.41 was the proceeds of the sale of the realty. Brunini having failed to comply with the decree, the heirs filed this bill to enforce the obligation for the application of the proceeds of the land against Brunini, principal, and Sanguinetti and Lowenberg, sureties. The defendants demurred, on the ground of want of jurisdiction, and because there was an adequate remedy at law; and, after the overruling' of their demurrer, having declined to answer, appealed from the final decree. 1. The judicial power of the several courts of this State is derived from the Constitution, by which it is defined, and is exclusive in each court. Const, art. 6, §§ 1, 14, 16 ; Walker v. State, 53 Miss. 532; 2 How. (Miss.) 856; 3 How. (Miss.) 252; 32 Miss. 52 ; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137. 2. The legislature cannot, in the exercise of its constitutional power, withdraw from one court and confer upon another cases the subject-matter of which brings them within the jurisdiction defined by the Constitution for the former. Barish v. State, 2 How. (Miss.) 826; 4 How. (Miss.) 170; Bank of Mississippi v. Buncan, 52 Miss. 740; 1 Cranch, 137. This does not conflict with the authority of the legislature to fix the jurisdiction over any new right and remedy created by it, or, by ancillary legislation, to aid the courts in the exercise of their full jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution. 3. The case under consideration is one-of recognized common-law cognizance, and, as an original suit, belonged to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. Code 1871, § 976, was not designed to cover a case like this; and, if so construed, would be unconstitutional. Smith v. Bverett, 50 Miss. 575; Walker v. State, 53 Miss. 532. The effect of Code 1871, § 976, is to confer on the Chancery Court jurisdiction to' enforce bonds executed in administrations pending therein. The statute is manifestly constitutional ; and Smith v. Bverett, 50 Miss. 575, not only announces an erroneous rule, but has been overruled by Bank of Mississippi v. Bunean, 52 Miss. 740, and Walker v. State, 53 Miss. 532, which are conclusive of the case at bar. The sureties can be proceeded against as well after the balance is ascertained as before.