case the case OF a parole administration queen if a administrator by letter of  administration can maintain trespass against the vendee of a administrator who  have administration grant by parole only but enter in the register before the  executor name in the will of the decease have refuse to prove the will a make  b his executor and die the ordinary commit administration to c the widow of a  by parole only take a oath of administration and give security all which be  enter in the register c sell several good to d by virtue of this  administration and then b refuse c die Administration be grant to e by letter  who bring trespass against the defendant d the vendee if it will lie the first  question be if the first administration to c the widow of a be good second  admit it void if the sale be good against e a I be of counsel with the  defendant in the cause who be a purchaser of good upon valuable consideration  as the very term sale imply and on that account we may expect more favour than  otherwise and true if this action be allow the vendee will have a hard bargain  of it to pay twice for his good and to pay a fine to the king too or else be  liable to a outlawry but yet we hope to have the plaintiff in pity pro falsely  warcry for his vexatious suit without the least colour or pretence as will be  plain and manifest if we prove either of the two point therefore as to the  first point whether the administration to c be good and I humble conceive it  be and question not but you will conceive the same present now it be well know  that if a man seize of land and tenement or possess of good and chattel in his  shower KB own right do die the heir at commonlaw be he that a see Geo c b see  the case of walker v hall lev Wadsworth v grey side king v peck salk Hambley v  Trott Cowp and vol Const edit of bott poor law a see the case of Abram v  Cunningham vent lev Mod Jones Freem shower KB er p by right of blood shall  succeed to the former but with he we meddle not as to his good the law have  appoint two sort of person for the administration of they for payment of his  debt and distribution of the residue for the good of his soul one of they be  constitute by the party in his last will the other may more proper be say to  be appoint by the law in default of the former b these two differ in this that  the former may appoint a executor to the first testator so can the latter and  they agree in this that a administrator be entitle to all the good and chattel  of the intestate as much as a executor to those of the testator both alike  liable to payment of debt and legacy and they be both Accountable about the  latter only be our present business it may not be amiss therefore to consider  how the administrator come by this power and I take it to be chief give he by  the Edward c which give he authority to sue for and recover the intestate debt  for before this though the ordinary be liable to debt as far as the good in  his hand do reach by the statute of Westminster the second yet he can not get  any of the intestate good out of other man hand neither can he nor his  committee or whatsoever you will call he recover any debt though due by  specialty till this statute of Edward c therefore I account this the principal  statute that give he authority c but this be not much material since now he  have it and our sole question be if the administration in our case be well  commit to c the widow of a and there can be no dispute but that we be next of  kin and if to any body it ought to be grant to her by Henry c now all the  pretence that can be to make it void be either first because there be a  executor in be or second because it be grant by parole only c for the first I  think it scarce worth mention for I do take the law to be clear that the  ordinary may commit administration till the will be prove and if it be never  prove the administration stand good and can be revoke and in our case the  executor meddle not with the good nor do he release any debt he do no way  administer without all question by this authority from the bishop she have a  interest in her husband good against all but b and albeit that b need not be  at the trouble to repeal the administration but may avoid it by seize the good  or otherwise administer or prove the will vet till he do one of they it be  good I may cite many authority to prove all this but shall only refer you to  Godolphin orphan legacy c c but further when the executor do afterward refuse  it be as if there never have be a will and so none appoint by the party d and  then the ordinarys power come shower KB fair in play and his power be well  exert and his office duly perform in grant administration to the widow who by  law ought to have it I conceive this may be grant to I as to the second rub of  its be grant by parole only c it be sufficient and my opinion in this point be  ground both upon authority and reason first upon authority and that be the  word of the author lastmentioned Godolphin in his b see   Finchs law Bl Com c  there appear to have be some doubt whether the ordinary can grant  administration pendent light of a will Bac Abr in robin case more the court  seem to think that he can not in the case of Frederick v hook Carth a  distinction be take that when the lie to hang be in the spiritual court  concern the right of administration there a administration grant during the  controversy be good but where it be concern the will it be not but in the case  of walker v woollaston Peer wms it seem to be settle that a administration  pendent light touch the will be good SC stram see also the case of impey v pit  show where it be resolve that a administrator pendent light of a will be  liable to ail action for that he be full a administrator for the time SC Jones  d but until a executor do refuse to prove the will he be in contemplation of  law executor for his right be derive from the will the probate be only  evidence of it and thereupon he have a constructive possession from the  testator death smith assignee of clark v hill term Rep shower KB er p legacy p  where he say a administration must pass under seal in write not by word of  mouth for the ordinary can commit administration by word of mouth otherwise be  it if it be grant and enter in the registry though letter of administration be  not draw these be his own word now though be be neither a judge nor a profess  commonlawyer yet his know skill in both law and his long experience in the  ecclesiastical court may well attract so much credit to his word as to judge  he capable of know what be the allow practice but I depend not sole on he for  second the reason of the thing make it good now what be the cause why regular  there shall be letter it be for certainty and that it may not be do rash and  also that the party may have they to show in court now certainty enough and  deliberation sufficient there be in register it and to that the creditor and  the other relation of the party decease may have recourse to know whether  administration be grant and to who and then as to the show they in court I  grant that the plaintiff ought if be sue as administrator e but perhaps the  intestate have no debt due to he but only money and good in possession and  then the administrator have no occasion for the letter for if he be defendant  in any action he need not show they much less need a vendee or any other  person claim under he who be not privy and therefore by the law be not suppose  to have the custody of they and this be resolve in Plowd a so that as to the  defendant it be not material whether there be letter or no because not oblige  to show they further suppose the widow be administrator be traverse it be a  matter in fait and shall be try per pais   and not by certificate from the  ordinary and if that be the register will be sufficient ground for he to  certify that it be grant and there be no doubt but the registry as it may be  bring for evidence so it will be allow good evidence at the trial suppose  again that letter be thereon I traverse they as forge then I think the  registry be the only proof for or against if not register the issue must be  find for I for what other way of proof put the case that the letter of  administration be lose through the carelessness of the administrator must the  vendees shower KB and releasees be undo here in our case all other due and  rite be right perform and here be no fraud in the case so as to make it void  by Elizabeth c then as to the regularity of it that needs not always be so  precise observe and follow for the ordinary may grant several administration  of several part of the intestate good Henry pl b he may grant it upon  condition roll Abr title executor he may grant it for a particular time as  till c and all these be good then last let we consider the statute whether any  of they oblige he to grant they by letter and no other way the first statute  that I know of be Edward which we call Westminster the second cap this be the  first but mention not administration for it only render the ordinary liable to  debt as a executor for all the good that come to his hand and my Lord coke  Inst tell we this be only in affirmance of the commonlaw though by the by I  conceive otherwise it be de the other which he himself say in those ancient  statute signify for the future or from hence forward which to my reason seem  plain to imply it be not so before but this be not much to our purpose  therefore let we consider the next which be the Edward chap which be only thus  that the ordinary shall depute the next and most lawful friend of the  intestate to administer his good which deputy shall have the benefit and incur  the charge of a executor so that this also mention nothing of the manner of  depute these administrator whether it shall be by letter e but by the car c  and Ann c no judgement shall be stay for default of allege the bring into  court of letter testamentary or letter of administration unless special and  particular set down and show for cause of demurrer and as a administrator who  recover a judgement for a debt due to the intestate need not declare as  administrator on the judgement but may bring the action in his own name  Bonafous v walker term Rep it be no objection on special demurrer although he  do declare as administrator that he have not make a profert of the letter of  administration Crawford v Whittall dougl notorious facts shower KB er p or by  register they or by parole this therefore can sway nothing as for the Henry c  that only limit and determine to who administration shall be commit and enact  nothing about the manner of grant they as for the Henry that only give doctor  of the civil law power to exercise jurisdiction ecclesiastical and therefore  matter nothing as for the Elizabeth that be only about administration get by  fraud for deceit of creditor so that the manner of grant administration be not  settle by the statute for the Edward which be the principal and give they the  authority say only make deputy and that may be by the register of it c so that  on the whole no statute be against I neither direct nor indirect and the  ordinarys authority and Godolphin opinion and the reason of the thing be for I  I think do need no more yet too much be always less perilous than too little I  shall say somewhat more of this because of the other I have no great scruple  in style register title Administration we find it resolve in car that letter  of administration may be revoke by a revocation without a seal now from hence  I will argue that administration shower KB may be grant and not under seal for  unumquodque to take apart eastern modus quo creature and consequent after the  same manner in which a thing may be dissolve it may be create for if all  administration never be grant but under seal I think it can never be revoke  but under seal and so it be in case of a will it can be make but in write and  therefore can be revoke but in write by the late statute I shall no long  insist on this but conclude the point upon what have be say already that the  administration be well commit second let we consider the second administration  to e if he by this can avoid the sale by c to d and I hold the sale good  against he and here it may be well observe that it have be often adjudge that  when once administration be grant to a right person unless a will appear or  the like the ordinary can at his pleasure revoke it and commit it anew to  another especial not so as to avoid all act do by the former administrator for  thence will ensue much confusion f but we be not revoke nor any other grant in  the lifetime of c I do ready yield Greisbrooks case in Plowden to be law that  if administration be commit and he sell good and afterward a will be prove the  executor may avoid the sale by bring a detinue against the vendee but I can  never find that a administrator may avoid a sale and it be to be note in our  case that c die and her administration be never repeal nor declare void by  sentence and so it may be well intend that e be only administrator de good non  c and then I be sure he can never avoid the sale unless it be fraudulent which  be not suppose in the case in that of Plowden the probate have relation to the  death and so avoid all administration and act do by they but here a  administrator die and administration be commit to another though the first be  void which do not appear yet I conceive clear the second can avoid all mean  act as a executor can again c our administrator have good authority to sell  till her administration be revoke especial against all claim under the  ordinary as the plaintiff do therefore I think the sale good the very case at  bar we lie in boundary in gulston and Glissons epitome of the commonlaw title  trespass page where be these word if administration be commit by word to a who  sell good to b and die and administration be commit to c quaere if c shall  have trespass for the good sell thus he shower KB make it a quaere but then  answer it himself in these word it seem he shall riot for a have authority as  it seem to sell now here be no mention of its entry ill the register if  without it when only by word of mouth the sale seem good their with it it be  certain good as Godolphin say further though it be true that a executor or  administrator may have trespass for good take before the administration grant  yet he can have it against he that justify under the ordinary for such a one  be administrator pro tempore Henry pl pl Henry pl now we claim the good by  sale from one who have power to make it by virtue of a administration from the  ordinary we have late case too first the case of Pachman   where  administration be commit to a stranger and the next of kin sue a citation to  have the former repeal pen the send the administrator f ray side lev shower KB  er p sell the good the administration be repeal yet it be resolve that the  first have the absolute property of the good in he and he may sell they to who  he will and though there be a revocation yet the sale stand good though it be  pen the suit which we be not nor be we ever revoke if administration be grant  upon condition and the administrator sell the good the condition be break yet  the sale stand good ibidem and as in these case the administration be lawful  till countermand so I hope on the whole you will conceive we it be to the next  of kin too for packman case be much strong than we the administration be to a  stranger and the sale be pen the suit suppose the administration void to c yet  she only be liable as executor de son tort be and not the vendee for if  another do take the decease good and sell or give they to I this shall charge  he as executor de son tort and not e nay if he that from the ordinary have  authority by letter ad colligend et vendend good to pass away and do sell or  dispose of any good though otherwise subject to perish it make he executor de  son tort though he have authority from the ordinary to do so and the vendee be  not liable dyer and now I take the law to be clear as it be in these case yet  the vendee of a executor de son tort be not liable to trespass for good buy of  such executor the application of this to our case be easy and natural so that  if the first administration be void without repeal or sentence declaratory  then the action be not well bring against the vendee but ought to have be  bring against c as executrix de son tort if it be not void but only voidable  then all act do by her till it be avoid stand good if shower KB neither void  nor voidable then there be not the least scruple but the sale be good  therefore take it which way you will the action of trespass lie not against  the vendee this you may see in prince case   needham case   h and dr drury  case   I many other thing may be add but this I think may satisfy at present  and therefore upon what have be say I humble pray judgement for the defendant  October b S shower KB trinity term the four of William and mary in the king  bench Thursday the that June sir John holt Knt chief justice sir William  dolben Knt sir William Gregory Knt sir Giles eyres Knt justice sir George  Treby Knt attorney general sir John summer Knt solicitor general