Show ESTATES OF DECEDENTS A subscriber writing from leeds utah propounds the following questions question s relative to the estates of dece dents i 1 if a man dies without making a will and his heirs can agree among themselves as to the division of the property does the law compel them to bring the matter before the court 2 it a man dies without issue an and din intestate leaving his bis wife in possession of his property is it necea necessary sary to ask for the action of the court unless some other claimant appears in view of the aversion which most of the people have for litigation of any kind and add their strong inclination in favor of a legal matters without recourse to the courts both of which sentiments are creditable the above questions become important not infrequently such queries are discussed by persons having a share in or a connection with the estates of dece dents and a statement of some of the principles of law underlying such matters will be useful information in answer totlee to toe first question it may be said th that at if there are no debts against the estate and the heirs of an intestate decedent are all of age and competent to dispose of their own rights they may I 1 settle them the estate among themselves without recourse to any court the procedure would be for them to agree upon the terms and particulars of the settlement and then exchange receipts etc if there is real estate to bs disposed of the heirs give quit claim deeds to the person who is to possess it if however there be debts due from the estate or if there are minor heirs oi or other inheritors who from any cause are incompetent to dispose of their claims against the estate the latter cannot be lawfully settled up except by the procedure in the courts which is prescribed by law the theory ot of tile the law is that the probate court has charge and control of the estates of decedents dece dents subject to to the district court A settle meat of an estate by the heirs themselves is valid rather for or the reason that there are no other parties in interest to disturb or question such a settlement tl than because the law provides lor for or contemplates it quit claim titles are regarded with more or lest lesl distrust at least until seven years adverse possession has confirmed them purchasers of real estate are generally suspicious of any irregularity in the title and if the property has any considerable value it is better to have the title conveyed in accordance with the order of a competent court the second question is answered by reference to the statute regulating succession see statutes of 1884 page aa the only case in which a wife could retain possession of the entire estate of her deceased husband would be when he died leaving neither issue father father mother brother nor sister even in such a case she would hold bold it for the reason that there existed no other party in interest to disturb her rather than because she had bad acquired acquire possession by due process were she to undertake to sell real estate belonging to the estate the purchaser would find a break in the title if he undertook to trace it and it woultz be a question whether or not he would be satisfied with such aone a one as she could give where an estate is of f trifling value there may be an object in settling it in ia the simplest and cheapest manner possible but ordinarily it is better to the estates of decedents dece dents in the manner prescribed by law as the expense so incurred would often save troublesome and abid costly litigation this is es specially ally true when real estate is left by an intestate decedent |