Meeks

— Harlan died seised of the premises in controversy — this was in 1850. In 1856 Aspinall, as administrator of his estate, made a sale of the premises to the defendants and their grantors — this sale was void. It was so determined here in Haynes v. Meeks, 20 Cal. 288 , and in Meeks v. Hahn, 20 Cal. 620 , in each of which cases the validity of the sale made by Aspinall was brought in question. But the defendants and their grantors occupying the premises at the time they purchased at this void sale afterward remained in possession adversely and continuously until the commencement of this action in 1868 — a period of some twelve years; and among other defenses they rely upon the provisions of section 190 of the Probate Act in bar of the action. The language of that section is as follows: “No action for the recovery of any real estate sold by an executor or administrator under the provisions of this chapter shall be maintained by any heir or other person claiming under the deceased testator or intestate, unless it be commenced within three years next after the sale.”

That the provisions of this section apply to sales absolutely void for want of jurisdiction, as contradistinguished…