Dennis

I concurin the judgment. The most important question in the case is whether Mrs. Dennis ever became administratrix of her husband’s estate. She certainly never had letters of administration in due form, and expressions have been used in the opinions of this court in several cases which at first glance would seem to imply that without letters regularly issued in due form there is no administration; or, in other words, that letters of administration, instead of being merely evidence of authority to administer, are themselves the only source of such authority. (Estate of Hamilton, 34 Cal. 469 ; Pryor v. Downey, 50 Cal. 399 ; 19 Am. Rep. 656 ; Staples v. Con *48 nor, 79 Cal. 15 .) But a critical examination of these cases will Show that in none of them was the proposition as here stated actually involved In every instance there had not only been a failure to take out regular letters of administration, hut also a failure to comply with one or more of the essential conditions expressly imposed by the order (or in the last ease the law) authorizing the party to administer, that is to say, he had failed to take the oath or file the bond, or both. Hone of those cases, therefore, is…

When this case was in Department the opinion" hereto attached was prepared by Mr. Commissioner Britt. After full consideration of the appeal in Bank we are satisfied with that opinion and with the conclusion there reached, and for the reasons therein given the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

Action to recover possession of a tract of land in Los Angeles county, and to set aside a sale thereof made in probate. Defendants, mere than a hundred in number, deraign through one Turner, who was the purchaser at said sale. Plaintiffs assert title as heirs of their father, Charles J. Dennis, who owned the land at the time of his death; against the validity of the sale they claim that the person who was appointed administratrix of the estate of said deceased sold the land without having qualified as administratrix and without right to act in that capacity; also that the petition and notice on which the court ordered the sale were insufficient to confer jurisdiction to make the order. There is no charge of actual fraud in the sale; it appears that the purchaser paid full value for the property. Defendants, in whose favor judgment passed below, rely on several lines of defense;…