It would be an idle discussion to go into the question as to whether the defendant was a trustee or whether he was a bailee. His conduct in reference to the trust committed to him was so imprudent that no excuse or palliation can be made for it.
There was4 placed in his hands by the father of the plaintiffs, who was the holder and owner thereof, a collectible note against J. S. Hinson, to be collected by the defendant and the proceeds paid over to the plaintiffs when they should arrive at the age of 21 years. Upon the death of the father, his widow had her year’s provisions laid off to her, according to the forms of law, and the commissioners allotted this note,-then in the defendant’s hands, to her as a part of her year’s support. The justice of the peace, who acted with the commissioners, in writing ordered the defendant to turn over the note to one Morton for the widow, and he complied with the order. The widow collected the money due on the note. The order of the justice was an absolute nullity. - He had no jurisdiction over the defendant’s person, for he was not a party to the proceeding to allot the year’s provisions, and, if he had been a party, the order of the justice would still have been void. A justice of the peace could exercise no jurisdiction over such a subject matter as -was involved m the order to the defendant. The note, or the proceeds of it when collected, was the subject matter of a trust, the defendant being trustee and the plaintiffs cestuis que trust; and the justice could have no jurisdiction over such a matter. There was no error in any of the rulings of his Honor, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.