Wilson

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The errors assigned in this case are the appointment of a receiver, and the attachment issued against the appellant, Eoach, for refusing to comply with the order of the District Court, commanding him to pay over moneys held by him, belonging to certain minors.

The facts set forth in the bill render the case one eminently of chancery jurisdiction.

The District Courts of this State have the same control over the persons of minors, as well as their estates, that the Courts of Chancery in England possess.

This jurisdiction is conferred by the Constitution, and cannot be divested by any legislative enactment.

The books are full of cases in which the authority has been exercised upon less cause than is shown by the-present case.

*367 The claim of exclusive original jurisdiction in the Courts of Probate over this subject is unfounded. Chancery may at any time interfere, and remove the proceedings before it. All the proceedings in this case are entirely consistent with the power and jurisdiction of the Chancellor,

*With regard to the process, we are of opinion that [367] there is no error. There may have been some irregularity, but not sufficient…