
    Elizabeth Towle, Administratrix, versus John Lovet.
    Trover lies for an administrator against a stranger for the conversion of a title deed of the plaintiff’s intestate committed m the lifetime of the intestate.
    Trover for the conversion of a title deed of lands of the plaintiff ’s intestate, of which he died seised, alleged to have been committed in the lifetime of the intestate.
    The parties agreed on the sum for which judgment should be rendered against the defendant, if the Court should be of opinion that the plaintiff, in her capacity of administratrix, is entitled to recover.
    
      King, for the defendant,
    contended that the heir, and not the administrator, was entitled to the possession of the charters and title deeds of the real estate of one deceased.  [*395] *The plaintiff is equally a stranger to the heir as the defendant ; and if she was to obtain possession of this deed, the heir might have his action against her for it. If the plaintiff recovers in this action, the money can under no pretence belong to her; nor is it easily to be seen how she can be compelled to appropriate it to the use of the estate, or the benefit of the heirs.
    Holmes, for the plaintiff,
    insisted that the administrator was entitled to the possession of the deed as against a stranger, as the defendant is. The cases in which it has been decided against the administrator, are all between him and the heir. For a conversion in the lifetime of the intestate, the administrator only can maintain trover. If the intestate had commenced the action, it would have survived to the plaintiff.
    Administrators may have actions of covenant, on a breach, during the life of the intestate, of a covenant real, which shows them entitled to the deeds containing the covenants.
    In cases of insolvency, the administrator is the only person concerned. The heir has no interest whatever, and the creditors can certainly have no action. 
    
    
      King, in reply, admitted the general doctrine that for a conversion of chattels generally in the life of the intestate, the administrator may maintain trover; but he still insisted that the case of title deeds was an exception to the rule.
    The opinion of the Court was delivered by
    
      
      
        Roll. Mr. 919.
    
    
      
       3 Mass. Rep. 621, Pitts, Exr., vs. Hale. — 1 Str. 60, Crossler vs. Ogleby.— 2 D & E. 708, Yea vs. Field.
      
    
   Parsons, C. J.

The defendant, although a stranger to the land, having no interest in it, has denied the plaintiff’s right to maintain this action, because the charters of inheritance at common law belong to the heir, and not to the administrator; and whether the plaintiff, in her capacity of administratrix, can or cannot maintain this action, is the question for our decision. And we are satisfied that in this state an administrator can maintain this action.

* It is very properly admitted that, for a conversion [ * 398 ] of the intestate’s goods in his lifetime, trover will lie by his administrator ; and the party who took an interest in charters of inheritance, may maintain not only detinue to recover them, but also trover for their conversion against a stranger. In this state, lands are assets in the hands of an administrator, for the payment of debts on a deficiency of personal estate; and in selling them, it may be necessary for him to exhibit the title deeds to persons who propose to purchase. So, if the intestate has sold the lands with warranty, and, after his decease, an action is brought to evict the purchaser, by a party claiming under a paramount title, the administrator may be sued in an action of covenant broken, if the purchaser be evicted, and damages recovered ; he may, therefore, have an interest to furnish the purchaser with the title deeds, to defend his title under the purchase. For these reasons, in this state, the administrator has an interest, as against a stranger to the lands, who can have no color of right to the deeds.

In the case at bar, it may be further added, that the conversion was committed in the intestate’s lifetime, and while he lived, the damages for the conversion accrued to him ; which, as a chose in action, came to the plaintiff as his administratrix, and did not descend to the heir. We are, therefore, satisfied that this action may be maintained by the plaintiff in her capacity against a stranger.

Whether this action by an administrator could be maintained against an heir for the last reason, and also when, in fact, the lands are necessarily to be sold for the payment of debts, so that the heir has no interest in them, it is unnecessary to decide.  