322 HARVARD LAW REVIEW
An executor named in a will could act freely without appoint-
ment from the probate court. This followed naturally from the
old notion that an executor took title from the will and not from
the court.[1] So long as the will was at some time proved, even
though the executor had previously died, his acts were valid.[2]
In the United States, however, where the executor has to rely on
his appointment from the court,[3] the rules in regard to adminis-
trators explained above should obtain. The old law is followed,
however, in some states.[4] Other courts with more reason treat
executors and administrators alike.[5]
Revocation of Probate and Administration Where an executor under a forged will, or an administrator inadvertently appointed in derogation of a nearer relative of the deceased, has his appointment revoked by one entitled to administer, the law with good reason is well settled. If debtors to the estate have paid their debts to the first appointee who has then wasted the money, they are fully protected against another demand by the second appointee.[6] Likewise those who have purchased property of the estate as such for full value with no intent to spirit away the particular chattel or to allow the first representative to divert the proceeds to his own use should be entitled to keep what they have
- ↑ Dyer, C. J., in Graysbrook v. Fox, i Plowd. 275, 280; Middleton's Case, 5 Co. 28 b; Wankford v. Wankford, 1 Salk. 299, 301; Roe v. Summerset, 2 W. Bl. 692.
- ↑ Brazier v. Hudson, 8 Sim. 67 (1836); Johnson v. Warwick, 17 C. B. 516 (1856).
- ↑ I Woerner, Amer. Law Adm., 2 ed., § 172.
- ↑ Thiefes v. Mason, 55 N. J. Eq. 456, 37 Atl. 1084 (1897); Magwood v. Legge, Harp. (S. C.) 116 (1824). See Hogan v. Wyman, 2 Oreg. 302 (1868); Shoenberger v. Lancaster Savings Institution, 28 Pa. 459 (1857).
- ↑ Carter v. Carter, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) 327 (1850); Pinkham v. Grant, 78 Me. 158, 3 Atl. 179 (1886); Gay v. Minot, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 352 (1849); Stagg v. Green, 47 Mo. 500 (1871) (but see Wilson v. Wilson, 54 Mo. 213 (1873)); People v. Barker, 150 N. Y. 52, 44 N. E. 785 (1896); Monroe v. James, 4 Munf. (Va.) 194 (1814). See Wall v. Bissell, 125 U. S. 382 (1888); Gardner v. Gantt, 19 Ala. 666 (1851).
- ↑ Allen v. Dundas, 3 T. R. (1789) 125, And see Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Bradley, 51 Neb. 596, 71 N. W. 283 (1897); Zeigler v. Storey, 220 Pa. 471, 69 Atl. 894 (1908); Schluter v. Bowery Savings Bank, 117 N. Y. 125, 22 N. E. 572 (1889).
third groups of cases dealt with in the text is not dearly brought out either in the facts or the opinions of the authorities. The administration bond required by Stat. 22 & 23 Car. II, c. 10, §§ 1-3, and by many of our statutes makes the administrator and sureties responsible for all " goods, chattels, and credits of the said deceased which have or shall come to the hands, possession, or knowledge of him."
