TESTAMENTARY LAW 3381

"Incapacity" under this section is statutory incapacity. See notes to sec. 56. Mobley
v. Mobley, 149 Md. 408.

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 absent
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. 19, 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. C/. Kailer v. Kailer, 92
Md. 150.

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

This section referred to in construing secs. 22 and 39—see notes thereto. Slay v.
Beck, 107 Md. 362.

This section construed in connection with sec. 74—see notes thereto. Thomas v.
Knighton, 23 Md. 325.

This section referred to in construing sec. 258—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. 19, 33 and 35.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 32. 1912, sec. 32. 1904, sec. 32. 1888, sec. 33. 1798, ch. 101,

sub-ch. 5, sec. 7.

33. 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?

It was error to grant letters of administration to decedent's widow without notifying
his children and giving them opportunity to apply for grant of letters. Horton v.
Horton, 157 Md. 127.

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 mistake. Jones v.
Harbaugh, 93 Md. 274; Ehlen v. Ehlen, 64 Md. 364; Rockwell v. Young, 60 Md. 572.

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.

Under sec. 24, as between a son of the deceased and his sisters, no notice was
required, nor was notice to another son who was out of state necessary. Waiver by
widow of lack of notice. Dorsey v. Dorsey, 140 Md. 171.

Generally.

Non-residence does not disqualify a party otherwise entitled to letters. Ehlen v.
Ehlen, 64 Md. 364.