Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/364

328 328 HARVARD LAW REVIEW of the administrator. If the will names no executor, if the executor be dead leaving no executor, if he or his executor if he takes his place re- fuses to take out probate and accept the executorship, the title of the administrator would, I gather, confessedly prevail. Those who have purchased goods from an administrator may find their title depend on the caprice of an executor or of an executor's executor." These observations are clearly sound and in accord with the pre- vailing view in this country, ^^ where the notion that an executor took title from the court and not from the will has had with good reason considerable following. Administration granted in a state where the deceased did not reside and left no effects is void.^^ Distributees and purchasers from the representative get no title, and are liable, though innocent, as converters. The decree of the probate court which has no juris- diction may be attacked collaterally.^^ Likewise administration on the estate of a living person is void.^^ In the United States in ^ Fidelity Co. v. Freeman, 109 Fed. Rep. 847 (1901); Floyd v. Clayton, 67 Ala. 265 (1880); Meek v. Allison, 67 111. 46 (1873); Martin v. Dix, 134 Ga. 481 (1910); Schluter v. Bowery Savings Bank, 117 N. Y. 125, 22 N. E. 572 (1889); Kittredge v. Folsom, 8 N. H. 98 (1835); Barkaloo v. Emerick, 18 Ohio 268 (1849); Patton's Appeal, 31 Pa. 465 (1858); Zeigler v. Storey, 220 Pa. 471, 69 Atl. 894 (1908); Foster v. Brown, I Bailey L. (S. C.) 221 (1829); Benson v. Rice, 2 Nott. & McC. (S. C.) 577 (1820); Price V. Nesbit, i Hill Ch. (S. C.) 445 (1834); Pinkerton v. Walker, 3 Hayw. (Tenn.) 221 (1816); Franklin v. Franklin, 91 Tenn. 119, 18 S. W. 61 (1892). Fallon v. Chidester, 46 Iowa 588 (1877), contra. Compare Waters v. Stickney, 12 Allen (Mass.) (1866); Besangon v. Brownson, 39 Mich. 388 (1878); Kelly v. Davis, 37 Miss. 76 (1859); Rag- land V. Green, 14 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 194 (1850). In some states by statute aU acts of a personal representative before revocation of his authority are as valid as if he had continued to execute his trust. California, Code Crv. Proc. (1916), § 1428; North Dakota, Comp. Laws (1913), § 8705; Ohio Annot. Gen. Code (1912), § 10635; South Dakota, Comp. Laws (1913) Pros. Code, § 131; Wisconsin, Stats. (1898), §§ 3815-17. ^^ Insurance Co. v. Lewis, 97 U. S. 682 (1878); Thormann v. Frame, 176 U. S. 350 (1900); Perry v. St. Joseph, R. Co., 29 Kan. 420 (1883); Thumb v. Gresham, 2 Met. (Ky.) 306 (1859); Hall v. L. & N. R. Co., 102 Ky. 480, 43 S. W. 698 (1897); Moise v. Mutual Life Association, 45 La. Ann. 736, 13 So. 170 (1893). Compare Appeal of WiUetts, 50 Conn. 330 (1882); Record v. Howard, 58 Me. 225 (1870); Hoes v. N. Y. N. H. & H. R. Co., 173 N. Y. 435, 66 N. E. 119 (1903); Andrews v. Avory, 14 Gratt. (Va.) 229 (1858). On jurisdiction to establish a devastavit against an executor, see Michigan Trust Co. V. Ferry, 228 U. S. 346 (1913). §§ 208-13. Some states by statute provide for the appointment of a receiver of the effects
 * See cases in preceding note.
 * ^ Scott V. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34 (1894); i Woerner, Ajuer. Law Adm., 2 ed.,