
    William H. Compton vs. Richard Compton et al. Administrator of Stephen Compton, deceased.
    C. andÍL filed a petition in the probate court, against W. 0., alleging that W. C. and themselves were jointly administrators ad colligendum, on the estate of S. C., and that W. O. had in his possession property of .the estate, which he claimed as his own, and refused to allow to be inventoried ; and prayed that he might be required to inventory it; W. C. filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the probate court: Held, that the probate court should entertain jurisdiction of the petition ; and W. C. might have an issue to the circuit court for the investigation of his claim to the property in his possession.
    
      Aliter, if W. C. had been a stranger to the administration.
    On appeal from the probate court of Jefferson county; Hon. Robert Duncan, judge.
    At the February term, 1844, of the Jefferson probate court, Richard Compton and Smith Hubbard filed their petition, setting forth, that at the preceding December term of that court, letters of administration ad colligendum on the estate of Stephen Compton, had been granted jointly to them and William H. Compton; that appraisers had been appointed, and that petitioners had exhibited to the appraisers all the personal property of the deceased, which had come into their possession, and which was duly appraised, &c.; that their co-administrator ad colligendum, William H. Compton had in his possession a large amount of personal property belonging to the estate, which he refused, to permit to be inventoried, or to allow petitioners to exercise any control over, jointly with himself; that this property (consisting of negroes, &c., which are described in the petition) was taken by the said William H. Compton from the said Stephen Compton, in his lifetime, as a loan returnable at the pleasure of the said Stephen, &c.
    They then pray that the said William H. Compton may be required to answer, &c., and to produce and show said property for tbe purpose of its being inventoried; and that he be required to join petitioners in the return of the inventory thereof, and to place said property jointly in the possession, and under the control of petitioners and himself.
    In this petition, a plea to the jurisdiction of the court was filed, which plea was annulled, and the defendant ordered to answer.
    From this decision he has prosecuted an appeal
    
      Sanders and Price, for appellant.
    We are not apprized of any law that confers such jurisdiction upon the probate court. It is manifest, from the showing of the appellees that the appellant claims the property as his own, and that he does not recognize or hold it is the property of the estate.
    We know of no law authorizing tv/o, or any portion of joint representatives to maintain an action against another portion thereof, for property not admitted to belong to the estate they represent. A
    Any decree that might be made by the probate court, in this controversy, would be no bar to the rights of the executors or legal representatives, heirs or-creditors of the deceased, andas the law abhors multiplicity of action, it will not tolerate the exercise of doubtful power, by a. court of inferior limited jurisdiction. Were the property admitted by the appellant to belong to the estate, the probate court might, ex. officio, proceed against him, and compel him either to inventory it or remove him from office and appoint another to represent the estate, who could institute an action at law, before a court of competent jurisdiction, for the recovery of the same, or proceed upon his bond. It cannot be pretended that in such a resort, that the probate court would have jurisdiction of the matter ; the jurisdiction of the probate court is in all matters testamentary and of administration in orphans’ business, and the allotment of dower in 'cases of idiocy and lunacy, and of persons non compos mentis. Cons. art. iv. sec. 18. There is nothing in the grant that authorizes the jurisdiction contended for by the appellees in this case. The act of 1821, sec. 17, (H. & H. 472) authorizing the said court to direct plenary proceedings, is supposed by us to have reference to certain civil jurisdiction formerly belonging to the county court, and subsequently conferred upon the probate court, and since taken away by statute, and can have no application to said court as organized under the new constitution, and subsequent legislation.
    This question is a new one, upon which we believe there is no precedent or adjudication whereby to enable us to enlighten this court on the subject. From our view we contend' that the order of the judge of the probate court, be reversed, with instructions to dismiss the petition of appellees, and that the appellant have his costs in both courts.
    
      John B. Coleman, for appellees.
    The plea to the jurisdiction of the court was properly overruled. The petitioners and the defendant were all officers of the court, and amenable to its jurisdiction. The facts set out in the petition (and which for all the purposes of the present proceedings stand admitted to the same extent as if the defendant had demurred) are, that the defendant, William H. Compton, who is a co-administrator with the petitioners, has in his possession, personal property of the estate, which he refuses to suffer to be inventoried; to compel him to do which, the interposition of the court is asked.
    The constitution, art. 4 sec. 18, has given to the probate court jurisdiction in all matters testamentary and of administration, &c.
    If this is not purely and exclusively a matter of administration, we are at a loss to conceive under what denomination it will fall.
    “ The jurisdiction of the probate court is exclusive over the matters confided to it by the constitution.” “ It is not a limited jurisdiction, but is general in all the matters mentioned. Whatever is a matter testamentary, or of administration, falls under the cognizance of the court of probates.” Blanton v. King, 2 How. 866; Charmichael v. Browder, 3 Howi 252; Gildart’s Heirs v. Starke, 1 How. 450.
    
      The very question, however, which is here presented, has been decided by this court in the case of Killcrease et al v. Kill-crease, 7 How. 316. A petition was filed by legatees in the probate court, alleging that the executrix had failed to return an inventory of certain negroes of her estate, and praying that she might be compelled to do so. The petition was dismissed on motion of the probate court, and the case brought up by appeal. On the argument of the cause, it was contended by the counsel of the executrix that inasmuch as she claimed the property in controversy in her own right, a question of title was thereby raised, which the probate court had no jurisdiction to try. Upon this point, the court say: “No doubt an action might be sustained upon the bond, but we think the probate court likewise has jurisdiction in the matter, and power to compel a full inventory to be filed. If this is not the case, its jurisdiction in regard to the estates of decedents, which was intended by the constitution to be full and ample, and almost exclusive, will be far too confined to answer its ends and objects.”
    Considering this decision as covering the whole question, we deem it unnecessary to urge further argument, or cite additional authorities.
   Mr. Justice Thacher

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appeal from the probate court of Jefferson county.

The appellees filed a petition in the probate court setting out that they and the appellant were jointly administrators ad colligendum of the estate of Stephen Compton, deceased; that they had exhibited to appraisers, duly appointed, all the personal estate of their intestate, which had come into their possession; that their co-administrator ad colligendum, the appellant, had in his possession a large amount of personal property belonging to the estate of their intestate, which he refuses to permit to be placed upon the inventory of the estate, and which they allege was merely loaned to him during the lifetime of the intestate, but which he insists is his own property. To their petition the appellant filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the probate court, which was overruled by the court, and the appellant decreed to answer the petition.

Under circumstances very similar to those of this case, this court has decided, that the probate court has jurisdiction of the matter, and power to compel a full inventory to be filed. Killcrease v. Killcrease's Ex., 7 How. 316. If the property in question be a part of the assets of the intestate’s estate, the probate court has full power to compel it to be added to the inventory, and, of course, can go into the inquiry to ascertain that fact. The appellant in his answer, may assert his claim of title, and enjoy the benefit of an issue to the circuit court, whereby the whole merits of his title can be made to receive full investigation. It is to be noticed, that this is a case of controversy between parties in the administration, and unlike the case of Holleman v. Holleman, decided at this term of this court, where one of the parties was a stranger to the administration.

Judgment affirmed.  