Appeal from the district.court of Santa Fe county, before John R. MoFie, Associate Justice.

Section 562 of tbe Compiled Laws provides: “Tbe several probate judges shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases relative to tbe probate of last wills and testaments; the granting letters testamentary and of administration, and tbe repealing tbe same . . . tbe settlement and allowance of the accounts of executors and administrators . . . tbe right of executor-ship, administration and guardianship, respecting tbe duties or accounts of executors, administrators or guardians. . . .” This law confers exclusive jurisdiction in these matters upon the probate court.

Estate of Moulton, 9 Utah 162.

If the law commands or prohibits a thing to be done, equity can not enjoin the controversy or dispense with the obligation.

1 Story Eq. Jur., sec. 69; Mining Co. v. District Court, 7 N. M. 501.

The jurisdiction for the settlement of decedent’s estates is generally conceded to be in the probate courts in this country.

Copinger v. Rice, 38 Cal. 408; 66 Cal. 112 ;

Reed v. King, 93 Cal. 96.

In such matters the Legislature has conferred unlimited jurisdiction on the probate courts as it was authorized to do by the organic act which at section 7 says: “The legislative power of the Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act. What is meant by rightful subjects of legislation?

Cope v. Cope, 137 U. S. 684; Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 204; Organic Act, sec. 10.

The administration of estates and the settlement of accounts of administrators, fall peculiarly and exclusively under the cognizance of probate courts.

Green v. Creighton’s Admr., 10 S. and M. 159; Jones v. Coon, 5 S. and M. 151; 1 Pomeroy Eq. Jur., secs. 348, 349 and 350.

In case of fraud practiced in tbe settlement, see—

Turnbull v. Endicott, 3 S. and M. 304.

In Alabama, Arkansas and Connecticut, probate ■courts have exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction in the •administration of estates.

King v. Smith, 15 Ala. 264; Goodrich v. Thompson, 4 Day 215; Ornet, Exr., v. Ornet, 33 Ala. 273; Osborn v. Graham, 30 Ark. 67.

In California it is held that the probate court has jurisdiction to settle the accounts of an administrator, and to ascertain and determine his liability to the estate, and the decree is conclusive, subject to be set aside, reversed or modified on appeal.

Eeynolds v. Brumagen, 54 Cal. 254; Williams v. Price,, 11 Cal. 212; Estate of Garrud, 35 Id. 277; Kingsley v. Miller, 45 Cal. 95; Estate of Hudson, Id. 446; Dean v. Supr. Ct., 11 P. C. 535 L. J.; McClellan v. Downey, Id. 448; Freeman v. Kahm, 8 Id. 126.

In Pennsylvania it is held: If there is anything besides death which is not to be doubted, it is that the orphans’s court alone has authority to ascertain the amount of the decedent’s property and order its distribution among those entitled to it,

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress