
    Bronson et al. vs. Burnett et al.
    A writ of error, instead of an appeal, is the proper course for bringing before the Supreme Court the proceedings had before a Judge of Probate, when an appeal had been taken to the District Court, and the Judge of Probate’s decision affirmed.
    The proceedings in this case were originally commenced before the Judge of Probate of Grant County, the matter in controversy being the estate, and an alleged nun-cupative will, of the late Thomas P. Burnett. From the decision of the Probate Judge, an appeal was taken to the Grant District Court; the Judge of which Court (the late Territorial Chief Justice Dunn,) sustained the decision of the Probate Judge; and on this judgment, or decree, a writ of error was brought to this Court.
    
      Lakin & Mills, for the defendants in error,
    moved to dismiss, on the ground that a writ of error did not lie on a proceeding of this character, the proper process of a review’ being an appeal.
    
      S. Crawford, for the plaintiffs in error.
   The Court,

(the Chief Justice giving the opinion, which was verbal) denied the motion: remarking that it was of no moment which proceeding, a writ of error, or an appeal, was pursued-. That it was one of those oases where it,was of more importance that the rule should be settled, than what that rule was; and that, in the absence of authority, or precedent, the Court felt at liberty to adopt such a course as was deemed most expedient; and that, on the whole, a writ of error was preferable to an appeal.

Motion denied.  