51

bate court, by allowing a judgment or order of the latter court to be attacked collaterally in the district court for error or irregularity. While the jurisdiction of the probate court over the estates of deceased persons is exclusive, it is exclusive only for purposes of administration. In determining the scope of administration proceedings reference must be had to the law at the time of the adoption of the constitution. The constitution specifies the general subject of the jurisdiction of the probate court without defining its extent, which is left, under certain limitations, to be fixed by statute. The jurisdiction of the probate court to determine claims against the estates of deceased persons is not exclusive except as provided by statute. Where the claim is ex delicto or does not mature within the time limited for the presentation of claims in the probate court the district court has jurisdiction. The determination of claims against an estate is not an essential feature of probate jurisdiction.52

23. District court cannot interfere with probate court-The district court cannot interfere with the probate court in the exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction, either by injunction or otherwise, except by virtue of its appellate and remedial jurisdiction.53

24. Ancillary jurisdiction of district court-The district court, as a court of equity, may not interfere with the constitutional powers of the probate court, but in furtherance of justice it may exercise an ancillary jurisdiction to aid the probate court in the performance of its proper functions. When a situation presents itself to which by its nature the probate court is not equal a court of equity may step in and see that justice is done. Where an executor sold shares of a bank belonging to an estate to certain stockholders with the fraudulent design of giving them control of the bank to the exclusion of the heirs of the estate, it was held that the district court, in an action by the heirs, had jurisdiction, in order to preserve the property in statu quo, to restrain the executor as an individual and the stockholders and the bank from disposing of the shares pending the administration proceedings. The law is not so much concerned with working out an abstract and ideal harmony between the respective jurisdictions of the probate and district courts as it is with the efficient administration of practical justice.55 A court of equity will entertain an action brought by an executor on

51 Pierce v. Maetzold, 126 Minn. 445, 148 N. W. 302. See § 8.

52 Comstock v. Matthews, 55 Minn. 111, 56 N. W. 583; State v. Probate Court, 103 Minn. 325, 115 N. W. 173. See State v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 277, 15 N. W. 245; Foreman v. Hennepin County, 64 Minn. 371, 374, 67 N. W. 207, and §§ 870-941.

53 Jacobs v. Fouse, 23 Minn. 51; Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27, 35, 11 N. W. 136;

54

O'Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371, 74 N. W. 148; State v. Bazille, 89 Minn. 440, 95 N. W. 211. See Brown v. Strom, 113 Minn. 1, 129 N. W. 136, and cases under §§ 22, 24.

54 Brown v. Strom, 113 Minn. 1, 129 N. W. 136. See § 1017.

55 Brown v. Strom, 113 Minn. 1, 129 N. W. 136; Fiske v. Lawton, 124 Minn. 85, 144 N. W. 455.

57

the part of the estate against a co-executor to determine the amount of a disputed claim, or to force an account, or to foreclose a mortgage, or in any other case, where justice requires it, if there is no remedy at law.5 25. No general equity jurisdiction-Equitable powers-Probate courts have no general equity jurisdiction such as district courts have, but they have all the powers, legal or equitable, essential to the due exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon them by the constitution. They have jurisdiction to determine questions of fraud incidental to any matter involved in administration.58 They may apply the equitable doctrine of estoppel in any matter involved in administration." They may likewise apply the equitable doctrines of subrogation, election, conversion, setoff and retainer." They have full equity powers necessary to the settlement and distribution of estates. They may apply the law to the facts whether the law is statutory, common law, or the principles of equity. Their equity jurisdiction is merely incidental to the administration of estates. They have no independent jurisdiction in equity over controversies between representatives of an estate, or those claiming under it, with strangers claiming adversely, nor of collateral actions.62

26. Of estates of deceased persons-Under the constitution the jurisdiction of the probate courts over the estates of deceased persons is exclusive. The scope of this jurisdiction is not defined by the constitution. To determine its scope reference must be had to the law at the time of the adoption of the constitution."4 It includes every matter necessarily connected with the administration of estates, as well as the conduct and duties of executors and administrators.65 The jurisdiction of the probate court over the estates of deceased persons is for the purpose of administering them and includes all matters pertaining to ad

50 Peterson v. Vanderburgh, 77 Minn. 218, 79 N. W. 828.

57 Appleby v. Watkins, 95 Minn. 455, 462, 104 N. W. 301; State v. Probate Court, 103 Minn. 325, 115 N. W. 173; Wellner v. Eckstein, 105 Minn. 444, 446, 454, 117 N. W. 830; Brown v. Strom, 113 Minn. 1, 11, 129 N. W. 136; Fiske v. Lawton, 124 Minn. 85, 91, 144 N. W. 455; State v. Probate Court, 133 Minn. 124, 155 N. W. 966, 158 N. W. 234; State v. Probate Court, 140 Minn. 342, 168 N. W. 14; Wilson v. Erickson, 147 Minn. 260, 180 N. W. 93. See State v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 277, 15 N. W. 245: Bitzer v. Bobo, 39 Minn. 18, 21, 38 N. W. 609; Mayall v. Mayall, 63 Minn. 511, 517, 65 N. W. 942; Kleeberg v. Schrader, 69 Minn. 136, 139, 72 N. W. 59; Peterson v. Vanderburgh, 77 Minn. 218, 79 N. W. 828; Haataja v. Saarenpaa, 118 Minn. 255, 136 N. W. 871.

27 A. & E. Ency. of Law (2 ed.) 553; 11 Cyc. 795; Woerner, Am. Law of Adm. (2 ed.) § 149.

58 Wade v. Labdell, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 510. See title "Fraud" in index.

59 Brook v. Chappell, 34 Wis. 405. See title "Estoppel" in index.

60 See these titles in index.

61 State v. Probate Court, 133 Minn. 124, 155 N. W. 906, 158 N. W. 234; Wilson v. Erickson, 147 Minn. 260, 180 N. W. 93: In re Prerost's Estate, 40 S. D. 536, 168 N. W. 630. See $$ 896, 1039, 1071, 1326.

62 Wilson v. Erickson, 147 Minn. 260, 180 N. W. 93. 63 See § 22. 64 See § 21.

65 State v. Probate Court, 112 Minn. 279, 128 N. W. 18; State v. Probate Court, 140 Minn. 342, 168 N. W. 14.

66

69

67

ministration. To give rise to this jurisdiction there must be a death and the ownership of property by the decedent. The power and duty to determine to whom property passes by will or descends by inheritance is vested exclusively in the probate court.68 The allowance of claims against the estates of deceased persons is not a necessary incident of administration proceedings and is not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate courts. The payment of legacies is not a necessary incident of administration proceedings, but in this state it is made so by statute.70 The chief features of administration proceedings in this state are the probate of the will of the decedent, if any, the appointment of an executor or administrator, the collection and management of the assets of the estate, the allowance and payment of claims against the estate, the construction of the will for purposes of admin!stration, the sale of property of the estate for the payment of debts and expenses of administration and legacies, and the distribution of the remainder of the estate in accordance with the terms of the will or the statutes of descent and distribution. These things are done either by the probate court itself or through executors or administrators, who are officers of the court and subject to its direction, supervision and control. The theory of our statutes governing the administration of estates of deceased persons is that the rights and claims, with certain exceptions, of all persons interested in the estate of a decedent are to be determined, in the first instance, by the probate court.72 Whether a probate court of this state has jurisdiction of the estate of a Chippewa Indian residing on the White Earth Reservation, and maintaining tribal relations, where he dies after an allotment to him but before a patent is issued therefor, is an open question.73 A probate court of this state

71

G6 Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225, 234, 33 N. W. 792; Mousseau v. Mousseau, 40 Minn. 236, 41 N. W. 977.

67 Fitzpatrick v. Simonson Bros. Mfg. Co., 86 Minn. 140, 146, 90 N. W. 378. See §§ 615, 616, 662.

68 Odenbreit v. Utheim, 131 Minn, 56, 59, 154 N. W. 741. See §§ 1059, 1071.

69 Comstock v. Matthews, 55 Minn. 111, 56 N. W. 583; Woerner, Am. Law of Adm. (2 ed.) § 153. See §§ 22, 881.

70 Huntsman v. Hooper, 32 Minn. 163, 20 N. W. 127.

71 Palmer v. Pollock, 26 Minn. 433, 439, 4 N. W. 1113; State v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 277, 282, 15 N. W. 245; Balch v. Hooper, 32 Minn. 158, 160, 162, 20 N. W. 124; Huntsman v. Hooper, 32 Minn. 163, 20 N. W. 127; State v. Probate Court, 33 Minn. 94, 95, 22 N. W. 10; Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225, 233,

33 N. W. 792; Mousseau v. Mousseau, 40 Miun. 236, 41 N. W. 977; Fitzpatrick v. Simonson Bros. Mfg. Co., 86 Minn. 140, 146, 90 N. W. 378; Betcher v. Betcher, 83 Minn. 215, 218, 86 N. W. 1; Duxbury v. Shanahan, 84 Minn, 353, 87 N. W. 944; Granger v. Harriman, 89 Minn. 303, 305, 94 N. W. 869; Appleby v. Watkins, 95 Minn. 455, 104 N. W. 301; Brown v. Strom, 113 Minn. 1, 5, 129 N. W. 136; First Nat. Bank v. Towle, 118 Minn. 514, 523, 137 N. W. 291; Beaulieu v. Ain-EWaush, 126 Minn. 321, 148 N. W. 282. See §§ 613, 723.

72 Huntsman v. Hooper, 32 Minn, 163, 20 N. W. 127; Wiley v. Lockwood (Minn.) 186 N. W. 699.

73 Beaulieu v. Ain-E-Waush, 126 Minn. 321, 148 N. W. 282. See Vachon v. Nichols-Chisholm Lumber Co., 126 Minn. 303, 144 N. W. 223, 148 N. W. 288.

has no jurisdiction to determine heirship and the descent of land allotted to a Chippewa Indian upon the White Earth Reservation, under the acts of Congress of February 8, 1887, and January 14, 1889, where the allottee dies before the approval of his allotment." The Clapp amendment of June 21, 1906, as amended March 1, 1907, emancipated adult mixed-blood Indian allottees from federal guardianship, and by implication gave to the probate courts of this state jurisdiction to administer the estates and determine the heirs of such mixed-blood allottees, whether death occurred before or after the passage of the amendments."

75

27. Of persons under guardianship-Under the constitution the jurisdiction of the probate courts over persons under guardianship is exclusive. In the constitutional grant of jurisdiction to the probate courts the word "estates" is used only with reference to deceased persons and not to persons under guardianship. The jurisdiction over persons under guardianship embraces jurisdiction over their affairs in general, including the management and disposition of their property. It includes authority to put persons under guardianship and does not cease when the guardianship ceases, but continues so far as matters of guardianship are concerned, such as the settlement of the accounts of a guardian, after a minor ward becomes of age." Probate courts have jurisdiction to put all persons under guardianship who are proper subjects for it, including minors, insane persons, idiots, drunkards, spendthrifts and incompetents.78 Jurisdiction over persons under guardianship includes not only the appointment of guardians and the control of their official action, but the care and protection of the estates of wards, formerly vested in the court of chancery.79 The constitution confers on the probate courts jurisdiction of the general subject of guardianship, but does not define its scope. To determine its scope reference must be had to the law at the time of the adoption of the constitution.80 Though the probate courts are invested with a general authority in matters of guardianship the manner and conditions of its exercise in a particular case are regulated and controlled by statute.81 Laws 1895, c. 156, providing for the treatment of inebriates by counties, is unconstitutional in that it assigns to the probate judge powers and duties beyond the jurisdiction authorized by the constitution.82

74 Holmes v. Praun, 130 Minn. 487, 153 N. W. 951.

75 Baker v. McCarthy, 145 Minn. 167, 176 N. W. 643.

76 Brandes v. Carpenter, 68 Minn. 388, 391, 71 N. W. 402. See § 22.

77 Jacobs v. Fouse, 23 Minn. 51; State v. Wilcox, 24 Minn. 143; Kelly v. Kelly, 72 Minn. 19, 74 N. W. 899.

78 State v. Wilcox, 24 Minn. 143.

79 State v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 277, 282, 15 N. W. 245.

So Jacobs v. Fouse, 23 Minn. 51; State v. Wilcox, 24 Minn. 143; Foreman v. Hennepin County, 64 Minn. 371, 67 N. W. 207.

81 Davis v. Hudson, 29 Minn. 27, 32, 11 N. W. 136.

82 Foreman v. Hennepin County, 64 Minn. 371, 67 N. W. 207.

89

88

28. Held to have jurisdiction-To construe wills and determine the validity of their provisions for purposes of administration; 83 to determine the amount of distributive shares; 84 to make an election for an insane or otherwise incompetent surviving spouse to take under a will or statute; 85 to compel an accounting by an executor after his discharge, the estate not being fully administered; s to determine heirship as provided by Laws 1897, c. 157; 87 to determine a claim to an estate on a contract by the decedent to make a will in favor of the claimant; to allow an accounting as to the claim of a third party on a share of a distributee of an estate; 8° to entertain administration proceedings solely for the purpose of prosecuting an action under the statute for death by wrongful act; 9° to determine to what extent, if any, the statutory interest of a surviving spouse is subject to the debts of the deceased spouse; 91 to compel non-residents who have been appointed executors or administrators in this state to submit to the service of a summons in a civil action brought in this state for the purpose of determining the liability of the estate they represent on a claim not provable in the probate court in the due course of administration; to determine the amount of an inheritance tax under Laws 1905, c. 288; 93 to determine who are the persons beneficially entitled to an estate; * to determine to whom an estate reduced to personalty should be apportioned, including the rights of a child adopted by the decedent by an agreement valid under the laws of the state where made; to determine whether a pretermitted child is entitled to inherit under G. S. 1913, § 7260; 96 to order a representative to pay to a surety of a creditor of the estate, whose claim had been allowed, a certain amount of the claim which had been paid by the surety to the creditor and who was therefore entitled to be subrogated pro tanto to the rights of the creditor against the estate, the creditor consenting to the order; " to determine the fact of ownership of land by the decedent for the purpose of fixing liability for inheritance taxes; 98 to determine the boundaries of

95

92

94

83 State v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 277, 15 N. W. 245; Duxbury v. Shanahan, 84 Minn. 353, 87 N. W. 944; Appleby v. Watkins, 95 Minn. 455, 104 N. W. 301. See §§ 724, 1071.

84 Huntsman v. Hooper, 32 Minn. 163, 166, 20 N. W. 127. See § 1071.

85 See § 517.

86 Betcher v. Betcher, 83 Minn. 215, 86 N. W. 1.

87 Fitzpatrick v. Simonson Bros. Mfg. Co., 86 Minn. 140, 90 N. W. 378.

88 Kleeberg v. Schrader, 69 Minn. 136, 72 N. W. 59. See § 152.

89 Starkey v. Sweeney, 71 Minn. 241, 73 N. W. 859. See § 1071.

90 Hutchins v. St. Paul, etc., Ry. Co., 44 Minn. 5, 46 N. W. 79.

91.

97

91 Luse v. Reed, 63 Minn. 5, 65 N. W.

92 State v. Probate Court, 66 Minn. 246, 68 N. W. 1063.

93 State v. Probate Court, 112 Minn. 279, 128 N. W. 18; State v. Probate Court, 140 Minn. 342, 168 N. W. 14.

94 Sprague v. Stroud, 114 Minn. 64, 129 N. W. 1053; Fiske v. Lawton, 124 Minn. 85, 144 N. W. 455.

95 Fiske v. Lawton, 124 Minn. 85, 144 N. W. 455.

96 Odenbreit v. Utheim, 131 Minn. 56, 154 N. W. 741.

97 State v. Probate Court, 133 Minn. 124, 155 N. W. 906, 158 N. W. 234.

98 State v. Probate Court, 140 Minn. 342, 168 N. W. 14.