ADMINISTRATION. The management of the estate 'Of an intestate, or of a testator who haS' no executor. 2 Bla. Cora. 494 ; 1 Wil liams, Ex. 401. The term is applied broadly to denote the management of an estate by an executor, and also the management of estates of minors, lunatics, etc., in those cases Where trustees 'have been appointed by authority of law to take charge of Such estates in place of the legal owners.
No adniinistration is necessary where there are no creditors and the heirs divide the assets in kind or otherwise by mutual agreement ; McCracken v. McCaslin, 50 Mo. App. 85 ; Cadmus v. Jackson, 52 Pa. 307 Brown v. Baxter, 77 Kan. 97, 94 Pac. 155, 574; or where the property of the intes tate is exempt ; Rivera y. R. Co. (Tex.) 149 S. W. 223; or where the widow is sole lega: tee and all debts and expenses are paid ; Block v. Butt, 41 Ind. App. 487, 84 N. E. 357 ; or where persons In interest settle their rights outside of the probate court ; Prichard v. Mulhall, 140 Ia. 1, 118 N. W. 43; and, in some states, such settlement, without admin istration, is authorized by statute ; Rogan v.' Arnold, 283 Ill. 19, 84 N. E. 58.
The controlling place of administration is the domicile of the testator; Higgins v. Eaton, 188 Fed. 938.
The right of administration is a valuable one and. not to be taken away, except as pro vided by statute ; Williams v. Williams, 24 App. D. C. 214.
Originally in England the crown claimed the right of administering the personal prop erty of intestates and exercised it by its ministers, or granted it as a franchise to lords of manors or others and afterwards to prelates, who, greatly abused the trust, un til, under the Statute of Westminster II, the ordinary was bound to pay the debts of the deceased so far as his goods would extend, but still the ecclesiastical persons who were entrusted with the duty, appropriated large portions of them upon the pretext of pious uses, until they were required by Stat. 31 Edw. III. c. 11, § 1, to grant administration to "the next of kin and most lawful friends of the dead person intestate," who were held accountable in the common-law court as ex-_ ecutors were. The administration of per
sonal estates then became assimilated to carrying out the provisions of wills, and the function of the ecclesiastical courts was merely the grant of letters and the super vision of their execution. Next, under 21 Hen. VIII., the ordinary could appoint the widow or next of kin, or both; at his discre tion. The jurisdiction in England was taken away from the ecclesiastical court by Stat. 20 & 21 Vic. c. 77, and vested in a judge of probate. The court of probate is now part of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Divi sion of the High Court of Justice.
In the United States, what is known as probate jurisdiction is exercised generally by courts known as probate courts held by surrogates, judges of probate, registers of wills, etc.
There are various kinds of administration: Ad colligendum. That which is granted for collecting and preserving goods about to perish (bona peritura). The only power over these goods is under the form pre scribed by statute.
Ancillary. That which is subordinate to the principal administration taken out in another state or country where there are assets ; Appeal of Barry, 88 Pa. 131; Stevens v. Gaylord, 11 Mass. 256; Rosenthal v. Renick, 44 Ill. 202 ; Trimble v. Dzieduz yiki, 57 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 208. In the ab sence of a statute allowing it (as in some states) an administrator in one state cannot sue as such in another, unless ancillary let ters are taken out ; Noonan v. Bradley, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 394, 19 L. Ed. 757; and this may be done by amendment after the bill is filed ; Black v. Henry G. Allen Co., 42 Fed. 618, 9 L. R. A. 433. One who is both ancil lary and domiciliary administratrix of the same estate cannot be called on, in one ju risdiction, to account for assets received in the other; Hamilton v. Carrington, 41 S. C. 385, 19 S. E. 616.