
    A. Benson, Adm’r., v. Rice & Byers.
    A sale by an administrator is valid., though, a will be afterwards discovered, and the administration revoked.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Joiinson, at Spartanburgh, Spring Term, 1820.
    In this case it appeared that the Ordinary set aside the will of John Turner, on the ground of insanity, in the testator, and granted letters of administration to Rebecca Turner, who sold the property by order of the Ordinary. Sarah Turner purchased the property in contest, at the sale of the administrator. Rive years after, the Ordinary reversed his former decision.
    The only question presented in this case was, whether the purchaser, at the administrator’s sale, can hold the property purchased, after the will is established ?
    The presiding judge decided against the purchaser, and for the defendant.
    A motion was now made to reverse the decree; because the Ordinary having set aside the will and granted administration, the sale is valid.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Coloock, J.

In this case there is no fraud alleged on the part of the administrator, and it is certainly different from the concealment of a will. “If administration be regularly granted, and afterwards, for cause, repealed, all lawful acts by the first administrator remain good; so, if administration be regularly granted to him to whom *it does not r*g>jo belong, and afterwards repealed upon a citation, all acts by the L first administrator are good ; as if he gires the goods of the intestate to another.” 1 Com. Dig. 375, tit. Administrator, b. 8. See, also, 2 Jac. L. D. by T. E. Tomlins. Where an administration, which has been granted, is properly revoked, the latter administrator may sue the former for money had and received, or trover for any goods remaining in his possession, by him converted, or not duly administered. Any other doctrine would be fraught with the most monstrous inconvenience. The community, who are not under the authority of judicial power, should be certain of protection in their rights.

The motion must be granted.

Johnson, Hugee, and Hora, JJ., concurred.

See Dud. 1, 11, Vance v. Davenport, Moore v. Smith, Columbia, Dec., 1855. 11 Rich.  