
    Case 35 — COUNTY COURT ORDER
    January 21.
    Atwell’s ex’r v. Helm, &c.
    APPEAL PROM MEADE COUNTY COURT.
    1. Will requiring no security or executor. — In such cases the county court may require the executor to give security on its own motion, or on the demand of some person interested in the estate of the testator, (Revised Statutes, section 4, chapter 37,1 Stanton, 498.)
    2. Order of county court requiring executor to give security is not final until enforced.
    3. Appeal prom county court should be pirst taken to the circuit court in case of removal of executor for failing to give security when required by the county court.
    John C. Walker,.........For Appellant,
    CITED
    Revised Statutes, section 4, chapter 37, 1 Stanton, 498.
    2 Dana, 429, Stevens’s heirs v. Stevens’s widow.
    Ms. Opinion, February, 1855, Easton’s ex’r v. Spotts.
    Joe Haycraft,.........For Appellees,
    CITED
    Revised Statutes, section 4, article 1, chapter 37.
    Civil Code, section 20.
   CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTSON

delivered the opinion op the court.

Section 4, chapter 37, Revised Statutes, 1 Stanton, 498, provides, in effect, that when a will directs that the executor shall not be required to give security, none shall be required by tbe county court, unless demanded by some person interested in the testator’s estate, or adjudged necessary by the court itself on its own view.

In this case the persons moving for security are not even alleged to have such interest, and the court said that none was necessary.

But, however erroneous therefore the order may have been requiring security, this preliminary order, not yet enforced, was not final, and this court has no jurisdiction therefore to reverse it. And had it been executed by the removal of the executor the appeal should have been first to the circuit court.

Wherefore the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  