Summary

Peter Vivian Daniel Fourniquet v. Perkins (48 U.S. 160…

The petition brought up before the court was the same presented to the Court of Probate,-covered the whole gravamen of the complainants' case. All their alleged rights and wrongs were embraced within its statements and prayers. This is not understood to have been a suit in equity, nor to have been one not cognizable by a jury. The fair presumption is, that the jury had the entire case before them. No exception to their cognizance of the whole case seems to have been interposed or thought of, and they rendered a general verdict for the defendant, to which verdict no exception was taken.
Source: Wikisource

Peter Vivian Daniel Fourniquet v. Perkins (48 U.S. 160…

It cannot be pretended that the forms of pleading may not be dispensed with by sutors; as it is certain that the benefit of matters both of substance and form may be lost by mere neglect or omission, where no intention of the renunciation of either is apparent or ever existed. We must conclude that the District Court had rightfully jurisdiction of the cause removed into it from the Probate Court; that its judgment is and must be binding upon the parties to it, until it shall be annulled or reversed by a competent authority.
Source: Wikisource

Peter Vivian Daniel Fourniquet v. Perkins (48 U.S. 160…

The jurisdiction of the Courts of Probate appears to be confined to cases which seek a settlement and an accounting for effects presumed to be in the possession of the representative of a succession, holding those effects in his representative character. Where the purpose is to charge the executor or curator personally for fraud, maleadministration, waste, or embezzlement of the succession, the Court of Probate has not jurisdiction, but in such cases jurisdiction is vested in District Courts.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature