TESTAMENTARY LAW. 2877

capable, or decline, or refuse to appear on proper summons or notice, or
if other relations and creditors shall neglect to apply, administration may
be granted at the discretion of the court.1

This section referred to in holding that relatives living in Greece of a deceased
resident of that country who died in Baltimore were not entitled either to notice
before grant of letters of administration in Baltimore to a citizen of this city, or
to have such letters revoked; rights of consul general and his representative not
superior to those of such relatives. Courts bound by treaties; construction thereof.
Chryssikos v. Demarco, 134 Md. 536.

An applicant for letters held not to be " incapable " within the meaning of this
section. Stouffer v. Stouffer, 110 Md. 372.

This section held applicable to letters granted under sec. 243 in case a party is ab-
sent and unheard of for more than seven years. Savings Bank of Baltimore v. Weeks,
110 Md. 92.

Only in the cases spoken of in this section and sec. 18, are letters to be granted
" at the discretion of the court." Smith v. Young, 5 Gill, 205. And see Georgetown
College v. Browne, 34 Md. 458.

Where the intestate's sister renounces and the next of kin fail to apply, administra-
tion is properly granted in discretion of court. Williams v. Addison, 93 Md. 46.
And see Dalrymple v. Gamble, 66 Md. 308; Rockwell v. Young, 60 Md. 572.

In exercising its discretion, the court should as a general rule appoint the person
having greatest interest in estate. Hoffman v. Gold, 8 G. & J. 84.

Letters of administration should not be granted to party sustaining relation of
both debtor and creditor to estate. Owings v. Bates, 9 Gill, 466. Cj. Kailer v. Kailer,
92 Md. 150.

This section referred to in deciding that court would apply same rules in the mat-
ter of time within which an application is made to revoke letters as in an applica-
tion for letters. Edwards v. Bruce, 8 Md. 397. Cf. Stocksdale v. Conaway, 14 Md. 107:

This section referred to in construing secs. 21 and 38—see notes thereto. Slay v.
Beck, 107 Md. 362.

This section construed in connection with sec. 71—see notes thereto. Thomas v
Knighton, 23 Md. 325.

This section referred to in construing sec. 257—see notes thereto. McGuire v
Rogers, 71 Md. 589.

Cited but not construed in Brodie v. Mitchell, 85 Md. 518; Glenn v. Reid, 74 Md.
241. Pollard v. Mohler, 55 Md. 289.

See notes to secs. 18, 32 and 34.

An. Code, sec. 32. 1904, sec. 32. 1888, sec. 33. 1798, ch. 101, sub-ch. 5, sec. 7.

32. It shall not be necessary to give notice to a party entitled to ad-
ministration if he be out of the State, nor shall it be necessary to sum-
mon or notify collateral relations more remote than brothers and sisters
of the intestate, in order to exclude them from the administration; and
no relations, except a widow, child, grandchild, father, brother, sister or
mother shall be considered as entitled unless they shall apply for the same.

Who is entitled to notice?

The law only provides for a notice to those entitled—if they desire letters, they
must apply. What amounts to notice? Dalrymple v. Gamble, 66 Md. 308.

A niece of decedent is not entitled to notice, nor is she entitled to letters unless
she applies. Williams v. Addison, 93 Md. 46.

A brother being out of state is not entitled to notice, and as intestate left no
other relatives who were entitled unless they applied, administration was properly
granted to a stranger. Such letters will not be revoked in absence of fraud or

1 For cases construing sec. 32 of Codes of 1860 and 1888, as amended by act of 1892,
ch. 571—the section as amended being now repealed—see Hunter v. Hersperger, 96 Md.
294; Wilkinson v. Robertson, 85 Md. 447; Moore v. Taylor, 81 Md. 648; In re Lee's
Estate, 76 Md. 110; McColgan v. Kenny, 68 Md. 260; Brown v. Bokee, 53 Md. 163;
Mobray v. Leckie, 42 Md. 477; Hubbard v. Barcus, 38 Md. 181; Stockett v. Bird, 18
Md. 489.