ADMINISTRATION-IN GENERAL 613. Nature and object-To take charge of, collect and manage the estate of a decedent, to settle and pay claims against the estate, and to distribute the remainder of the estate according to law, are the primary purposes of administration.55 When the owners of property die, that property, under the conditions and restrictions of the law applicable, is transmitted to their successors named by their wills or by the laws regulating inheritance in cases of intestacy. For a suitable time it is essential that the property should remain under the control of the state, until all just charges against it can be discovered and paid, and those entitled to it as new owners can be ascertained. It is in the public interest that the property should come under the control of the new owners, after such delays only as will afford opportunity for investigation and hearing to guard against mistake, injustice or fraud. It is the duty of the sovereign to provide a tribunal under whose direction the just demands against the estate may be determined and paid, the succession decreed, and the estate devolved to those who are found entitled to it. Sometimes this duty is performed by conferring jurisdiction upon a single court and sometimes by dividing the jurisdiction among two or three courts. The courts may be called ecclesiastical, probate, orphans', surrogate or equity courts. The jurisdiction may be exercised exclusively in one, or divided among two or more, as the sovereign shall determine. But somewhere the power must exist to decide finally as against the world all questions which arise in the settlement of the succession. Mistakes may occur and sometimes do occur, but it is better that they should be endured than that, in a vain search for infallibility, questions shall remain open indefinitely. The world must move on, and those who claim an interest in persons and things must be charged with knowledge of their status and condition, and of the vicissitudes to which they are subject. This is the foundation of all judicial proceedings in rem. It is therefore within the power of the sovereign to give to its courts the authority, while settling the succession of estates in their possession through their officers, the executors or administrators, to determine finally as against the world all questions that arise therein.56 If a person dies testate, the will has to be probated, and the estate administered, distributed, and assigned according to the provisions of the 55 Balch v. Hooper, 32 Minn. 158, 160, 162, 20 N. W. 124; State v. Probate Court, 33 Minn. 94, 95, 22 N. W. 10; Mousseau v. Mousseau, 40 Minn. 236, 238, 41 N. W. 977; Fitzpatrick v. Simonson Bros. Mfg. Co., 86 Minn. 140, 146, 90 N. W. 378; Granger v. Harriman, 89 Minn. 303, 305, 94 N. W. 869; First Nat. Bank v. Towle, 118 Minn. 514, 523, 137 N. W. 291; Maddock v. Russell, 109 Cal. 417, 423, 42 Pac. 139; 18 Cyc. 57; 23 C. J. 997; Woerner, Am. Law of Adm. (2 ed.) § 10. See §§ 26, 625. 56 Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U. S. 43, 55. will; if he dies intestate, his estate has to be administered, distributed, and assigned according to the law of succession and inheritance. In the one case the probate court has to determine whether the will has been executed according to law, and, if so, to construe its provisions; in the other case, it has to determine who are the distributees or heirs, according to the statute.57 Power over the estates of decedents within its jurisdiction is inherent in every state on common-law principles, of which the provisions of the probate code in that regard are but declaratory.58 614. In rem-Administration proceedings are in rem, the res being the estate of the decedent.59 615. Assets essential-As a general rule the existence of assets within the jurisdiction is essential to administration, for it is the estate and not the expired breath of the decedent upon which administration operates. The want of assets is not a ground for a collateral attack on the appointment of a representative.61 60 616. Death of owner of estate-Presumption-Absentees-StatutesDeath of the owner of an estate is a jurisdictional prerequisite to administration. If the supposed decedent was in fact alive at the time of the initiation of administration proceedings on his estate the proceedings are absolutely void, in the absence of statute. They are subject to collateral attack and are not a protection to any one, though acting in good faith.62 Where the state provides for suitable notice and adequately safeguards the property of an absentee it may confer on its courts power to administer his estate, even though he is in fact alive, 57 Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575, 50 N. W. 923. 58 Putnam v. Pitney, 45 Minn. 242, 245, 47 N. W. 790. 59 Morin v. St. Paul etc. Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 176, 178, 22 N. W. 251; Hutchins v. St. Paul etc. Ry. Co., 44 Minn. 5, 7, 46 N. W. 79; McNamara v. Casserly, 61 Minn. 335, 343, 63 N. W. 880; Ladd v. Weiskopf, 62 Minn. 29, 36, 64 N. W. 99; Fridley v. Farmers & Mechanics Savings Bank, 136 Minn. 333, 162 N. W. 454; In re Barlow's Estate (Minn.) 188 N. W. 282; Carter v. Frahm, 31 S. D. 379, 141 N. W. 370; Bolton v. Schriever, 135 N. Y. 65, 31 N. E. 1001; Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U. S. 43; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71; 18 Cyc. 64; 23 C. J. 1006; Woerner, Am. Law of Adm. (2 ed.) § 148. See §§ 40, 240, 259, 613, 661, 662, 949, 1073. 60 Hutchins v. St. Paul etc. Ry. Co., 44 Minn. 5, 7, 46 N. W. 79; Fitzpatrick v. Simonson Bros. Mfg. Co., 86 Minn. 140, 62 Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34; Fitzpatrick v. Simonson Bros. Mfg. Co., 86 Minn. 140, 146, 90 N. W. 378; Fridley v. Farmers & Mechanics Sav. Bank, 136 Minn. 333, 162 N. W. 454; Becthold v. King, 134 Minn. 105, 158 N. W. 910; In re Paulsen's Estate (Cal. App.) 170 Pac. 855; 19 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 840; 11 A. & E. Ency. of Law (2 ed.) 759; 18 Cyc. 65; 23 C. J. 1007; Woerner, Am. Law of Adm. (2 ed.) §§ 208-213; 4 Ann. Cas. 1119. See § 679. 63 after a reasonably long absence has raised a presumption of his death." There is a presumption of law that one who has been absent from his home for seven years without being heard from by those who would naturally hear from him, is dead. This presumption affords sufficient prima facie evidence of the death of such absentee to authorize administration on his estate." 64 617. One whole proceeding-When a probate court legally probates a will or appoints a first administrator it thereby acquires jurisdiction to direct and control the administration, and such jurisdiction continues over the administration, as one proceeding, till its close.65 Administration proceedings are one whole single proceeding, or at least may be made so by statute, as in this state."" 618. Control of probate court-The whole estate of every decedent is subject to administration whatever disposition may be made of it by will. Whenever the jurisdiction of the probate court attaches in the particular instance to the estate, the whole of it, and more especially the personalty, comes within the authority and control of the court, for the purpose of administration and for distribution according to law or the directions of the will if there be one. This control of the property the court exercises through the executor or administrator, whose duty it is to bring the personal property into his possession. Until it has passed to him through administration, no legatee, whether the bequest to him is in his own right or as trustee, and no next of kin, has a right to the possession. That right is in the executor or administrator, as such, and if he takes possession he takes it in that capacity. The 63 Cunnius v. Reading School District, 198 U. S. 458; Nelson v. Blinn, 197 Mass. 279, 83 N. E. 889; 222 U. S. 1; Stevenson v. Montgomery, 263 Ill. 93, 104 N. E. 1075; 19 Harv. L. Rev. 535. 64 Scott v. Neal, 154 U. S. 34, 49; Wisconsin Trust Co. v. Wisconsin M. & F. Ins. Co., 105 Wis. 464, 81 N. W. 642; Miller v. Sovereign Camp, 140 Wis. 505, 122 N. W. 1126 (search for absentee not necessary); Stevenson v. Montgomery, 263 Ill. 93, 104 N. E. 1075; Appeal of Daggett, 114 Me. 167, 95 Atl. 809; McLaughlin v. Sovereign Camp, 97 Neb. 71, 149 N. W. 112 (search for absentee not necessary); 11 A. & E. Ency. of Law (2 ed.) 760; 22 Id. 1245; 13 Cyc. 297; 18 Id. 66; 40 Id. 1245; 23 C. J. 1007; 8 R. C. L. 708; 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 294; L. R. A. 1915B, 729; L. R. A. 1915B, 756; 7 Ann. Cas. 570; 14 Ann. Cas. 240; Ann. Cas. 1917A, 82. See State v. Plym, 43 Minn. 385, 45 N. W. 848; Waite v. 67 Coarcy, 45 Minn. 159, 47 N. W. 537; Spahr v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 98 Minn. 471, 108 N. W. 4; Behlmer v. Grand Lodge, 109 Minn. 305, 123 N. W. 1071; Pierson v. Modern Woodmen, 125 Minn. 150, 145 N. W. 806; Swanson v. Modern Brotherhood, 135 Minn. 304, 160 N. W. 779. 65 Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225, 33 N. W. 792; Rice v. Dickerman, 47 Minn. 527, 529, 50 N. W. 698; Boltz v. Schutz, 61 Minn. 444, 447, 64 N. W. 48; Hanson v. Nygaard, 105 Minn. 30, 117 N. W. 235; In re Barlow's Estate (Minn.) 188 N. W. 282; Michigan Trust Co. v. Ferry, 228 U. S. 346. See Bombolis v. Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co., 128 Minn. 112, 150 N. W. 385; and § 32. 66 Michigan Trust Co. v. Ferry, 228 U. S. 346. 67 In re Scheffer's Estate, 58 Minn. 29, 34, 59 N. W. 956. theory of our statutes governing the administration of estates is that the rights and claims of all persons interested in the estate of a decedent are to be determined and passed on, in the first instance, by the probate court, and that all moneys, whether to creditors, legatees, or next of kin, are to be paid out of the estate upon order or decree of that court first duly made.68 619. Nature of estates of decedents-The estate of a decedent has no legal personality that can have a status in court. It cannot sue or be sued, or be a grantor or grantee of property.69 It is not an entity, corporate or otherwise.70 An estate of a decedent is the property of every kind left by him at his death.71 620. Probate law defined-The term "probate law" is used in this country to denote all matters of which probate courts usually have jurisdiction, including the administration of the estates of decedents. The word "probate" originally meant merely "relating to proof” and afterwards "relating to the proof of wills." 72 621. Presumption of close-Where it is shown that administration proceedings were had many years ago it will be presumed that they proceeded in due course and were closed.73 622. In what county-Administration proceedings must be had in the county wherein the decedent resided at the time of his death, if he was a resident of the state, and if he was a nonresident, in any county wherein he left property, or into which any property belonging to his estate shall come.74 623. Unorganized counties attached to organized counties-Where a county "established," but not organized, nor authorized to have a probate court, is attached for judicial purposes to an "organized" county, the probate court of the latter has jurisdiction over the former.75 624. Amicable distribution without administration-Where no administration of the estate of a deceased person who died intestate is applied for, either by the next of kin or creditors, within the statutory time for the presentation of claims against the estate, and no claims are filed or presented within that time, or administration had, the heirs en 68 Huntsman v. Hooper, 32 Minn. 163, 165, 20 N. W. 127; Wiley v. Lockwood (Minn.) 186 N. W. 699. 69 Estate of Columbus v. Monti, 6 Minn. 568 (403); Kenaston v. Lorig, 81 Minn. 454, 457, 84 N. W. 323. See Ma goun v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 86 Minn. 486, 91 N. W. 5 (a fire insurance policy may be made payable to an estate of a deceased person). 70 De Paris v. Wilmington Trust Co. (Del.) 104 Atl. 1352. titled to the personal estate may dispense with the appointment of an administrator and formal administration by amicable distribution of such property according to their respective rights and thus acquire a valid title thereto.76 625. Time limited for settlement of estates-Statute-At the time of granting letters testamentary or of administration, the court shall make an order allowing the executor or administrator reasonable time, not exceeding eighteen months, for the settlement of the estate. But for good cause shown by the executor or administrator, such time may be extended, not exceeding one year at a time." The purpose of statutory proceedings for the administration of estates is to marshal the assets of the estate in order that the debts of the estate may be promptly paid. and the remaining assets promptly distributed to those entitled to them, and probate courts should require an expeditious compliance with the statutes. 78 626. Same-When another administrator is appointed-Statute— When an executor or administrator dies, resigns, or becomes incapable of discharging his trust, and another administrator is appointed, the probate court may extend the time for the settlement of the estate beyond the time originally allowed, not exceeding one year at a time, and not exceeding one year beyond the time which the court might by law allow to the original executor or administrator, as provided in § 7333 (625, supra).79 627. Same-Representative not disqualified after time limited-Statute-After the expiration of the time finally limited, an executor or administrator shall not be disqualified from doing anything necessary to settle the estate which he might have done before, unless removed by the probate court, but he shall not be relieved from any liability or penalty incurred by his failure to settle the estate within the time limited.8° 628. Jurisdiction of federal courts-Where proper diversity of citizenship exists and the requisite amount is in controversy a federal court has original jurisdiction to determine the rights of creditors, legatees, and heirs in an estate and to enforce them by appropriate process in per 76 Granger v. Harriman, 89 Minn. 303, 94 N. W. 869. See Foote v. Foote, 61 Mich. 181, 28 N. W. 90; Letts v. Letts, 73 Mich. 138, 41 N. W. 99; Ewers v. White's Estate, 114 Mich. 266, 72 N. W. 184; Powell v. Pennock, 181 Mich. 588, 148 N. W. 430; Brobst v. Brobst, 190 Mich. 63, 155 N. W. 734; 11 A. & E. Ency. of Law (2 ed.) 742; 18 Cyc. 62; 23 C. J. 1002; Woerner, Am. Law of Adm. (2 ed.) § 201; 112 Am. St. Rep. 727; 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 454; 6 A. L. R. 555. 77 G. S. 1913, § 7333. 78 Bolles v. Boyer, 141 Minn. 404, 170 N. W. 229; In re S. Marks & Co.'s Estate, 66 Or. 340, 133 Pac. 777; Maddock v. Russell, 109 Cal. 417, 423, 42 Pac. 139; Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U. S. 43, 55; In re Delaney's Estate (Nev.) 171 Pac. 383. See §§ 613, 691, 749, 882, 1057, 1142. 79 G. S. 1913, § 7334. 80 G. S. 1913, § 7335. |