.3468 ARTICLE 93

if the person, so appearing to be in default, does not appear in court in
answer to the letter, the court may order him to be summoned by the sheriff,
and on his appearing may pass such order as may be just in the premises;
and, upon his not appearing after having been duly summoned, the court
may revoke his letters testamentary, or of administration, or guardianship;
upon any such revocation, the court may, at its discretion, order that the
parties interested, or any one or more of them may be summoned to appear,
and may make such order or appointment as the laws of the State and
justice may require. But no guardian shall be thus summoned ex officio
to appear before the court after his ward has arrived at legal age; nor shall
any executor or administrator be thus summoned ex officio after more
than three years have elapsed since his default.

Cited but not construed in Baldwin v. Hopkins, 172 Md. 226; Goldsborough v. DeWitt,
171 Md. 266.

The clause in this section exempting guardians from summons after their wards are
of age does not preclude a proceeding at instance of an interested party, such as a
surety or a ward, to require guardian to settle account. Baldwin v. State, 89 Md. 593.

This section gives the orphans' court power to compel an administrator to comply
with sec. 223. Fowler v. Brady, 110 Md. 210.

See notes to sec. 253.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 270. 1912, sec. 261. 1908, ch. 428.

271. The orphans' court shall have power to authorize and direct any
executor, administrator or guardian to compromise any claim against or in
favor of the estate of any decedent or ward, as the case may be, in such
manner as the said court may approve.

For the court to exercise the power given it by this section to authorize executor to
compromise claims, the essential facts relating thereto should be presented to the court;
money advanced, services rendered, counsel fees, etc. McClusky v. Kalben, 167 Md. 479.

This section does not confer upon orphans' court full powers with which courts of
law and equity are invested of deciding upon validity and amount of creditor's claim
against estate; it merely confers power to authorize an executor or guardian to coin-
promise a claim on terms approved by court, without determining its legal status or
amount. The action of orphans' court under this section will be upheld in absence of
positive error or injustice. Badders v. O'Brien, 114 Md. 451.

See art. 75, sec. 60, and art. 16, sec. 278.

Cited but not construed in Blum v. Fox, 173 Md. 531, 534.

Cited but not construed in Murray v. Hurst, 163 Md. 489.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 271. 1912, sec. 262. 1904, sec. 260. 1888, sec. 256. 1798, ch. 101,
sub-ch. 15, sec. 20. 1886, ch. 164.

272. The orphans' court shall not, under pretext of incidental power
or constructive authority, exercise any jurisdiction not expressly conferred
by law, but every judgment, decree, decision or order of the said court
may be enforced by' attachment and sequestration as aforesaid; and if the
said judgment, decree, decision or order be for the payment of money the
property sequestered may, at the discretion of the court, be applied to the
purpose for which such judgment, decree, decision or order was given;
and if the judgment, decree, decision or order shall be for the payment of
costs, and the party or parties against whom the said judgment, decree,
decision or order for the payment of costs shall be rendered shall be en-
titled to a distributive share of the estate in which the suit is involved, the
court may order said costs to be paid out of said distributive share.

Guardians.

The orphans' court has no jurisdiction to authorize a guardian to invest ward's funds
in a loan to guardian himself upon his promissory note bearing interest. Fidelity Co.
v. Freud, 115 Md. 29.

This section referred to in discussing the authority vel non of the orphans' court,
to appoint a guardian ad litem. Williams v. Holmes, 9 Md. 289.