
    Richard Hill, adm'r of Mary Hill v. Patrick Brennan.
    Trover for negroes. The intestate, Mary Hill, had had the negroes in her possession for thirty years. For the years 1834 and 1835, the defendant, Brennan, hired the negroes from her. In 1836, after the term of hiring expired, the negroes were demanded, and Brennan refused to return them. Mary Hill, the plaintiff’s intestate, took out letters of administration on the estate of her husband, John Hill, who had been dead thirty years, and returned these negroes as a part of his estate. In the fall of the same year, Mrs. Hill died; Brennan kept possession until about Christmas, when the negroes were taken out of his possession by some of the distributees, and were sold, for a division, in January. The plaintiff, as the administrator of Mary Hill, brought an action of trover against Brennan, in which he claimed the hire of the. negroes for the year 1836. Held, that by’hiring the negroes from Mrs. Hill, the defendant acknowledged her title, and could dispute it only by showing that she had parted from her title to him', or some other person; that on his refusal to deliver the negroes, she hg.d a right to sue him, that this cause of action descended to her administrator, the plaintiff, and that the'circumstance that she afterward took out letters of administration on John Hill’s estate, and inventoried these negroes as apart of his estate, did not vary the case.
    
      An administrator is the legal owner of the goods of the intestate, by relation, from the death of the latter, and .may maintain trover for 'a conversion of the goods, since the intestate’s death, in his or her own name.— (S. P. Kerby v. Quinn, ante, p. 264.)
    
      Before EVANS, /., at Fairfield, Spring Term, 1839.
    This was an action of trover, for negroes. The intestate, Mary Hill, had had the negroes in her possession for thirty years. For the years 1834 and 1835, Brennan hired the negroes from her. In 1836, after the term of hiring expired, Brennan refused to return the negroes. They were demanded, and he refused to return them. In May, 1836, after demand and refusal, Mary Hill took out letters of administration on the estate of her husband, John Hill, who had been dead thirty years, and returned these negroes as a part of his estate. In the fall of the same year, Mrs. Hill died — Brennan kept possession until about Christmas, when the negroes were taken out of his possession by some of the distributees, and were sold, for division, in January following. The plaintiff claimed only hire of Brennan for the year 1836. The question was, whether the plaintiff after his intestate had inventoried and returned the negroes as belonging to John Hill’s estate, could maintain the action. His honor, the presiding judge, decided that he could. Before Mrs. Hill administered, Brennan had hired the negroes of her, and refused to return them. That by the hiring he was estopped to deny her title.
    The defendant now moved the Court of Appeals for a new trial or nonsuit, on the ground:
    That the negroes, which were the subject of the action, being the property of the estate of John Hill, of which Mary Hill was the administratrix, the right of action did not go down to her administrator.
   Cuma, per Evans; J.

By hiring the negroes from Mrs. Hill, the defendant acknowledged her title, and could dispute it only by showing that she had parted from her title, to him, or some other person. Upon his refusal to deliver, she had a right to sue him, and this cause of action descended to her administrator, the plaintiff. The circumstance that she afterwards took out letters of administration on John Hill’s estate, and inventoried these negroes as a part of his estate, could not vary the case. She was still the owner of the negroes in law, and according to the case of Kerby v. Quinn, decided during the present term, (ante. p. 264,) could maintain an action for the defendant’s conversion in her own name.

M’Call & Hammond, for the motion.

Clark & M’Dowell, contra.

The motion is therefore dismissed.

O’Neall, Earle and Butler, Justices, concurred.  