
    *Levi H. Perkins versus Jeremiah Fairfield.
    A title under a sale by administrators, by virtue of a license from the Court of ■ Common Pleas, was holden good against the heirs of the intestate, although the license was granted upon a certificate from the judge of probate, not authorized by the circumstances of the estate.
    This was a writ of entry sur disseisin, and was submitted to the decision of the Court upon a statement of facts agreed by the parties.
    The demandant claimed under a conveyance from O. C. Williams and A. Smith, administrators of the estate of O Williams, Esq., deceased, intestate, duly executed, acknowledged, and recorded.
    The estate of said deceased being represented insolvent, commissioners were appointed, by whose return of claims allowed by them, added to the charge of administration, it appeared there was a deficiency of personal estate to meet the said claims and charges, to the amount of 3039 dollars 93 cents. This being certified by the judge of probate, with his opinion that it was necessary that the whole of the real estate should be sold for the purpose of satisfying the said claims and charges, a license was granted to the said administrators, by the Court of Common Pleas for this county, August, 1806, to sell the whole real estate accordingly, of which the de manded premises were part.
    The administrators being dissatisfied with the allowance by the commissioners of a certain claim, the same was settled by an action at law, and was thereby so reduced that the amount of the claims, as finally allowed; together with the charges of administration, left a charge upon the real estate of 1740 dollars 78 cents only, which was less than the value of the real estate, as appraised in the inventory.
    The administrators, in pursuance of the license aforesaid, sold divers parcels of the real estate of the deceased, before the sale of the demanded premises, for the payment of the debts of the deceased and incidental charges ; the sum of 129 dollars 94 cents being left for said charges, after paying all the debts and the administrators’ charges.
    The administrators took the oath prescribed by law, previous to the sale of the said real estate; but they gave no bond, according to the statute in such case provided.
    * The tenant derived his title to the demanded prera- [ * 228 ] ises by conveyance from one of the children and heirs of the deceased, and was in possession thereof at the time of the sale thereof by the administrators, and also at the commencement of this action.
    If, in the opinion of the Court, the demandant had disclosed a good title to the demanded premises, the tenant agreed that judgment should go against him by default; otherwise the demandant was to become nonsuit.
    
      Boutell, for the demandant.
    The license of the Common Pleas, being in a case within its jurisdiction, was conclusive. It would have rendered the sale valid, even if, in truth, no demands existed against the estate. 
    
    
      
      Rice, for the tenant.
    It is agreed in the case that the estate was not insolvent, and the license for the sale was granted upon an erroneous and unfounded certificate of the judge of probate. The sale, under which the demandant claims, was made after enough had been sold to satisfy all the claims on the estate, even including the charges of administration, for which the real estate was not liable.  The statute authorizing the granting of licenses in such cases requires a bond to be given by the administrators before the sale,  and the demandant, claiming under an authority derived from the statute, should be holden to a strict conformity to its provisions.
    
      
       7 Mass. Rep. 292, Leverett vs. Harris.
      
    
    
      
       3 Mass. Rep. 258, Dean vs. Dean.
      
    
    
      
      
        Stat. 1783, c. 32.
    
   Per Curiam.

The order of the Court of Common Pleas, under which the administrators made the sale in this case, was a license to them to make sale of all the real estate of their intestate. That court had jurisdiction of the subject matter. If that jurisdiction was improvidently exercised, or in a manner not warranted by the evidence from the Probate Court, yet it is not to be corrected at the expense of the purchaser, who had a right to rely upon the order of the court, as an authority emanating from a competent jurisdiction. It is too late to say that the neglect of requiring a bond from the administrators, to account for the proceeds of the sale, is fatal to a title derived from their authority,

Tenant defaulted. 
      
      
         Leverett vs. Harris, 7 Mass. Rep. 292. — Sed vide Thomson vs. Brown & Al. 16 Mass. Rep. 172.—Heath vs. Wells, 5 Pick. 140.
     