Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/543

 HOLMES V. OBSaON & CJLVtPG&fUlk BT. 00. 531- �naàjoMty Hàve held that a grantof adjtôiriisliatioû by a surro- gate waS a judieial delermination 61 the dea^iii' of the person; u|)dr('i)ihose esta te administration i8 granted, and oonclusive etidenceibf the atithority of tHe a-dmitiistratDt' to aet until the ietters were rëvoked or the order gfaiiting'thein set aside oa; ajipeal, "80 fatj at least, fts to ffrotect i^tiamat persons'act- ing'ûixtn the faith of theiû,'"' •• : ' ' �' Bat' this deeision, notwithstaiiding the plailsible arguments iii'BUpport of it, is, as Jiidge Eedôeld reniarked, (5 Am. Law Eeg. 213,) "without a precodent in English or' American ftiriBprudënce;" and the respOnsiKility ifor it is practically laid' tipon- the statu te'- of the state, which is said to require the surrogate in ail «aees tu liear evidence and determine the question ofdeathbefore granting the leiters. : ■ 'f �"^ But iii'JàcJumisen v. 5. S. Bànk,Z Alieis.'SS, the supreme court of ■ Massachusetts, - ander like cireuastances,' held that a graiit of adniinistration upoii the estate of a person erroi. neôusly supposed to be deadii'was^oid, because the jurisdiûi tion of the probate judge was limited to the appointment of adûiinistrators upon the'i estates of deceased persons. Ahd va. Griffith V. Frazier, 8 CrdncH, 9; the supieiae court of the United States held that the appointment of an administrator by the ordinary of South Carôlina upon the estate of a person, where there was an executer entitled to actj Was void. .Chief Justicia Marshall delivered the oipinion of the court, and in noticing the argument that the appointment \yas the judg- mtent of an offlcer exereised ttpon a sdbject cognizable in his courtj and'therefore not void, even if erifttiëousy admitted its foi-iSe'andthedifficulty ofdifetin^nishing the cases in whieha court of ■getieral • probate jurisdiction may be said to have aoted on^'a^ubject not withlniits^cognizance, and said : "But the difficulty^Gf'marking the precise Une of distinction does nbe'brought beforë hith. * *i * But sup- pose admimst*ation to be grantted^ on the eçtàte of a person Hot'really deadu The act,all will (admit, is'totally void; Yet ����