Burrus v. Burrus
Citations
- 56 Miss. 92
Syllabus
<p>1. Probate Ootjrt. Process. How regulated.</p> <p>The chapter on. “ Probate Court,” in the Code of1857, contained all of the statutory provisions in reference to the issuance, execution, and return of the process of that court, and all questions in relation thereto should be determined by the provisions of that chapter alone. The provisions of that Code in regard to the issuance, execution, and return of the process of Circuit Coui'ts had no application to the process of Probate Courts.</p> <p>2. Same. Its proceedings entirely statutory.</p> <p>The Probate Court was a peculiar court, which did not proceed according to the regulations of the common law, but was regulated by statute, and chap. 60 of the Code of 1857 contained a complete system for the exercise of its jurisdiction and powers, independent of the provisions with i-eference to other courts, except in so far as some other provision may have been made applicable, in express terms, to the Probate Court.</p> <p>3. Same. Process. Return thereon.</p> <p>The return of a sheriff of “Summoned,” or “Executed,” on process of the Probate Courts, was a sufficient return to meet the requirements of the Code of 1857. The case of Mundy et al. v. Calvert et al., 40 Miss. 181, overruled.</p> <p>4. Same. Process. Return showing manner of service.</p> <p>But where a sheriff, in attempting to comply with the requirements of the Circuit Court law, in showing how he had executed a summons from the Probate Court, made a return which showed that he had not properly executed it, the court could not proceed as if the writ had been properly served, notwithstanding the sheriff’s return contained the word “executed,” in connection with other words showing the manner of the service.</p> <p>5. Same. Appointment of guardian ad litem. Without process for minor.</p> <p>Under the Code of 1857, it was not a prerequisite to the power of the Probate Court to. appoint a guardian ad litem that the minor should first be cited, but that court c
Judges: Campbell, Chalmers, Simrall
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Merritt v. WhiteMississippi Supreme Court· 1859-10-15· cited 11×
- Ingersoll v. IngersollMississippi Supreme Court· 1868-10-15· cited 10×
- Robertson v. JohnsonMississippi Supreme Court· 1866-04-15· cited 9×
- Jack, a Freedman v. ThompsonMississippi Supreme Court· 1866-04-15· cited 8×
- Miller v. PalmerMississippi Supreme Court· 1877-10-15· cited 7×
- M'Allister v. MoyeMississippi Supreme Court· 1855-12-15· cited 7×
- Mullins v. SparksMississippi Supreme Court· 1870-05-15· cited 6×
- Erwin v. CarsonMississippi Supreme Court· 1876-10-15· cited 5×
- Wells v. SmithMississippi Supreme Court· 1870-10-15· cited 4×
- Saxon v. AmesMississippi Supreme Court· 1873-04-15· cited 2×
- Mundy v. CalvertMississippi Supreme Court· 1866-04-15· cited 2×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.