
    Crocker, in equity, versus Smith.
    If an intestate have conveyed land, without any consideration, in trust for his own benefit, the administrator is not entitled to a re-conveyance.
    The law gives him not a title to the land of his intestate, but merely a right to sell the same, in a prescribed mode and for certain specified purposes.
    The plaintiff is administrator of Asa Smith’s estate. The bill sets forth, that the intestate was owner of certain real estate, which he conveyed, without any consideration, to the respondent; that it was the agreement of the parties that the respondent should hold the same in trust, for the use of the intestate ; and that the estate has been represented insolvent. It thereupon prays that a re-conveyance may be decreed.
    The respondent appears, and, in writing, admits the truth of the allegations contained in the bill.
   By the Court.

The bill cannot be maintained. The administrator has no title to the lands of his intestate. At most, he can have only a right to sell. And he can sell only when the court of probate shall decree the sale to be necessary ; and under many guards, (such as an oath of faithfulness, specified notice and bond to account,) for the safety of the heirs,, creditors, &c. A conveyance by the respondent to the administrator would enable him to sell without furnishing the protections required by law.

Neither would a conveyance to the heirs, constitute the land to be assets of the estate. The case, too, presents other difficulties, quite insurmountable.

But there is no necessity for a decree such as is prayed for. The statute, relating to the sale of lands, of which the intestate was disseized, contains ample provisions for the case presented in the bill.

Bill dismissed.  