
    * Abiel Washburn and Another, Appellants, versus James Sproat, Administrator.
    An administrator is not holden to account for the value of buildings erected by his intestate upon the land of his wife.
    LeonapvD Sproat, the respondent’s intestate (whose estate was deeply insolvent), in his lifetime erected a dwelling-house and a joiner’s shop on certain land, the fee of which was then, and at the time of his decease, in his wife. On the final settlement of the respondent’s administration account in the probate office, the appellants, being creditors to the estate of the intestate, insisted that he should be held to account for the value of those buildings. The judge of probate, being of opinion that the said buildings were not liable to the debts of the deceased, decreed accordingly; and the appellants, dissatisfied with the said decree, appealed to this Court!
    
      Wood, for the appellants,
    referred to the case of Wells & Al. vs. Banister & Al. if Trustee 
      .
    
      Eddy, for the respondent.
    
      
       4 Mass. Rep. 514
    
   Per Curiam.

The administrator cannot be held to account for the value of buildings erected upon land belonging to the wife of his intestate. There could be no contract with the wife during her coverture, which would entitle the administrator to enter upon the land, and take the buildings. In the case of a lease, the tenant may remove buildings, erected on the demised premises in such a manner that they may be removed without injury to the soil. But if one erect buildings upon the land of another voluntarily, and without any contract, he may not remove them.

Decree affirmed  