209. Issue I. Payment of Third-Party Claim. Herman first contends that the trial court erred in ordering him as co-trustee of the Main Trust to pay Albert and Woll Enterprises, Inc. for services rendered in operating the Main Trust's oil interests. He argues that the trial court, sitting as a probate court, lacked sufficient subject matter jurisdiction to enforce a claim against the Main Trust asserted by a party not a party to the cause of action. Herman relies primarily on IND.CODE 30-4-6-1 (placing jurisdiction over trusts with the probate courts); IND.CODE 33-5-43-4 (de scribing the jurisdiction of Vanderburgh Superior Court); Wedmore v. State (1954), 233 Ind. 545, 122 N.E.2d 1; Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York v. State ex rel. Anderson (1933), 98 Ind.App. 485, 184 N.E. 916 (<HOLDING>); and Husted v. Sweeney (1943), 113 Ind.App.
holding that the board of supervisors possesses only those powers expressly conferred by statute or necessarily implied therefrom holding that virginias statute was expressly limited to entities within the insurance industry holding that a healthcare power of attorney conferred by a resident to his wife explicitly limited the powers of the agent to those set out in writing in the document holding that a probate courts jurisdiction is limited to that expressly conferred or which is necessarily implied from those expressly conferred holding that appellate courts assumption of jurisdiction over interlocutory order when not expressly authorized to do so by statute is fundamental jurisdictional error