
    Edw’d C. Walker, Adm’r of Robt. May, vs. John May, and others.
    The grant of administration has relation to the death of the intestate, and legalizes the intermediate acts of the administrator; and a judgment against an executor de son fort, will be valid against him after he has regularly administered, and binds the estate, unless fraud or collusion be shown. The administrator in such case will be estopped from denying his former executorship. [x23]
    The plaintiff in this case, as the administrator of Robert May, filed his bill in the Court of Chancery, for Colleton district, against the defendant, to set aside the sale of certain negroes, and for an account of their hire. At January Term, 1831, Chancellor De Saussure decreed the sale to be illegal and void, and ordered the negroes to be sold by the Commissioner, and that it be referred to him to examine and report the debts against Robert May In pursuance of this order, the Commissioner sold the negroes, for an amount which, with the account for their hire, exceeded the debts. On the reference to ascertain the debts, a debt was claimed in favor of John King. To establish the debt, the record of a case in the Court of Common Pleas was produced, from which it appeared *that, in 1825, King brought suit against Margaret May, (the r*oq widow of Robert May,) and Edward C. Walker, (the present L plaintiff,) as executrix and executor de son tort, on a promissory note for §200, payable on demand, and dated in 1811, and judgment was obtained and execution issued in 1821. Margaret May afterwards died, and in 1829, Edward O. Walker took out letters of administration on the estate of Robert May, and it is admitted that he is now insolvent. The Commissioner rejected the demand, on the ground that the note was barred by the statute of limitations in the lifetime of Robert May, and the judgment against his executors de son iort, he held was not valid, so as to re-establish it.
    The creditor, King, claimed to have his debt paid out of the assets in the hands of the Court, and excepted to the Commissioner’s report, alleging error in his decision. At January Term, 1834, Chancellor Johnston overruled the exceptions, and confirmed the report, and from his decree an appeal was taken.
    
      Dunhin, for the appellant,
    argued that the subsequent administration of Walker had relation back to the death of his intestate and legalized all his previous acts; and that he was estopped from denying the validity of the judgment. He cited and relied on 1 Com. Dig. 466, tit Ex’ors and Adm’rs; 1 Esp. Dig. pt. 2, p. 91; 2 St. 1106, Yaughn v. Brown; 2 Yent. 180 ; 1 Com. Dig. 503 ; 8 John. 121; 1 Saund. 265, note 2.
    
      Elmore, contra,
    cited Anderson v. Belcher, 1 Hill, 246. M’Neil v. Jones, lb. 84.
   Harper, J.

It appears to me that the only material question in the case is, whether the judgment obtained by John King against Margaret May and Edward C. Walker, as executors de son iort of Robert May, is valid as against Edward C. Walker, now administrator of Robert May, and binds the estate in his hands. It is agreed that Margaret May is dead, so that, in any point of view, Edward C. Walker, as survivor, is alone subject to be sued. If it be a valid judgment against the administrator, there can be no question respecting the statute of limitations.

I think the authorities referred to on the part of the appellant, sufficientty establish that it must be regarded as valid. The doctrine* 'j4-‘ inferred from the case of Vaughan v. Brown (Str. 1105) is, that the grant of administration has relation back to the death of the intestate, and legalizes the intermediate acts of the administrator. In that case the defendant was sued as executor, and claimed to retain for a judgment from the deceased in his lifetime to himself. It was replied that he was executor cle son tort, and he rejoined administration granted to himself puis darrien continuance. So, in 1 Saund. 262, n. 2, it is said that a subsequent administration legalizes acts which were tortious at the time. The same doctrine is recognized in the case of Rattoon u. Overacker, 8 Johns. 91, and by this Court in Witt v. Elmore, 2 Bail. 595. In the latter case, it is said the effect of the rule is to legalize the acts done as executor de son tort, both for and against him. Suppose-an action of debt to have been brought on the judgment against Edward C. Walker, as survivor, a recovery must have been had. Supposing it necessary to describe as executor, in conformity to the former judgment, he would have been estopped by the record to deny himself executor; and then suppose an execution .issued on the last judgment and enforced the effects of the testator in his hands, how could the enforcement of that execution have been restrained ?

The administrator himself would have been estopped. He represents all creditors and distributees, and they are bound by his acts, unless in cases of fraud or collusion. The effects, in the present instance, are not in the hands of the administrator; but he is entitled to all funds of the estate until all debts are paid, nor until then can the distributees be entitled to anything. It is said, an execntor is not bound to plead the statute of limitations. Toll. Law of Exor’s, 343-429; Ex parte Dewdney, 15 Ves. 498. However this may be, (and perhaps in some iustanees it may be questionable,) in this case he has not pleaded it; there is a judgment against him which binds him and the estate. If he has been guilty of a neglect of duty in this matter, the remedy of those interested in the estate must be against him on his official bond. The motion is therefore granted, and the exceptions sustained.

Johnson and ONeall, Js., concurred.  