Cited by

and settled according to law.” Brandes v. Carpenter, 68 Minn. 388 , ; Betcher v. Betcher, 83 Minn. 215 , ; Appleby v. Watkins, 95 Minn. 455 , , 5 Ann. Cas.

Betcher v. Betcher, 88 Minn. 215, 218 , ; 5 Dunnell, Dig.

Betcher v. Betcher, 83 Minn. 215 , 218 , 86 N.W.

ation, it would seem to be an idle proceeding to again ask for adminis *596 tration simply for the purpose of distribution when all the parties in interest are of full age.” Beasons for sustaining the district court’s jurisdiction in the case at bar are the same; The two cases relied upon by Don in support of his contention that the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction are Betcher v. Betcher, 83 Minn. 215 , , and First T. & S. Bank v. U. S. F. & G. Co. 163 Minn. 168 , .

Mumford v. Hall, 25 Minn. 347 ; see Betcher v. Betcher, 83 Minn. 215 , ; First T. & S. Bank v. U. S. F. & G. Co. 163 Minn. 168 , .

In referring to this constitutional authority in Betcher v. Betcher, 83 Minn. 215, 218 , , this court said: “This embraces absolute control over administrators and executors', and includes the necessary power to call them to proper accounting.” An administrator is an officer of the laAv.

See Jacobs v. Fouse, 23 Minn. 51 ; Betcher v. Betcher, 83 Minn. 215 , ; Pierce v. Maetzold, 126 Minn. 445 , ; Fischer v. Hintz, 145 Minn. 161 , ; Wilson v. Erickson, 147 Minn. 260 , .

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

Balch v. Hooper, 32 Minn. 158 , .” In Betcher v. Betcher, 83 Minn. 215 , , it was held: “Under the constitution, as -defined by the decisions of this court, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over the estates of decedents.

State v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 277 , ; Wiswell v. Wiswell, 35 Minn. 371 , ; In re Scheffer’s Estate, 58 Minn. 29 , ; Boltz v. Schutz, 61 Minn. 444 , ; Starkey v. Sweeney, 71 Minn. 241 , *164 ; Betcher v. Betcher, 83 Minn. 215 , ; Brown v. Strom, 113 Minn. 1 , 129 N W. 136; State ex rel.

State v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 277 , ; Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225 , ; Mousseau v. Mousseau, 40 Minn. 236 , ; Brandes v. Carpenter, 68 Minn. 388 , ; Betcher v. Betcher, 83 Minn. 215 , ; Fitzpatrick v. Simonson Bros. Mnfg.

State v. Probate Court of Sibley County, 33 Minn. 94 , ; Wiswell v. Wiswell, 35 Minn. 371 , ; Culver v. Hardenbergh, 37 Minn. 225 , ; Reiser v. Gigrich, 59 Minn. 368 , ; Boltz v.Schutz, 61 Minn. 444 , ; Starkey v. Sweeney, 71 Minn. 241 , ; O’Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371 , ; Betcher v. Betcher, 83 Minn. 215 , ; Duxbury v. Shanahan, 84 Minn. 353 , ; Appleby v. Watkins, 95 Minn. 455 , ; Gary, Probate Law (3d Ed.) §§ 565 and 566; R. L. 1905, §§ :3705-3766; Steel v. Holladay, 20 Ore.

The principal ground urged in support of the demurrers is that it does not appear upon the face of the complaint that there was default in the conditions of the bond, and that the district court did not acquire jurisdiction of the subject-matter for the reason that the amount of the administrator’s liability had in no manner been determined by the probate court, relying upon Betcher v. Betcher, 83 Minn. 215 , , and other cases.

It has been held in the following cases that this jurisdiction is exclusive: State v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 277 , ; Boltz v. Schutz, 61 Minn. 444 , ; Brandes v. Carpenter, 68 Minn. 388 , ; Betcher v. Betcher, 83 Minn. 215 , .