M'Farland (Lewis's Lessee v.) 9 Cranch, 151.. M'Iver's Lessee v. Walker, 9 Cranch, 173. Morean v. United States Insurance Company, 1 Wheaton, 219. 527 549 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED. vii Richards v. Maryland Insurance Company, 8 Cranch, 84. 36 Russell v. Trustees of Transylvania University, 1 Wheaton, 432. 622 St. Jose Indiano, The, Lizaur, Claimant, 1 Wheaton, 208. .523 210 9 Cranch, 120.. St. Nicholas, The, Meyer et al. Claimants, 1 Wheaton, 417. Sugar, 30 Hogsheads, v. Boyle, 9 Cranch, 191. T. 288 614 . 269 327 Trustees of Transylvania University (Russell v.) 1 Wheaton, 432. 622 U. Union Bank of Georgetown (Mandeville v.) 9 Cranch, 9. United States (Arnold v.) 9 Cranch, 104. 233 -287 -349 46 .389 .612 .322 .339 45 .. 633 .199 -527 . 285 .259 .242 Welch v. Mandeville, 1 Wheaton, 233.. Walton (Taylor v.) 1 Wheaton, 141. Watkins (Otis v.) 9 Cranch, 339.. Watt's Executor (Mutual Assurance Society v.) 1 Wheaton, 279. Winter (Corporation of New Orleans v.) 1 Wheaton, 91 Wood (Davis v.) 1 Wheaton, 6. . . . . .556 .317 496 .374 -549 531 . 276 30 .312 .476 .446 The removal of a qualified executor from the State does not disqualify him, nor enable the ordinary, in South Carolina, to appoint an administrator. If the ordinary appoint an administrator of an estate, of which there is an executor capable of acting, he exceeds his jurisdiction, and his act is void. A judgment rendered against one as administrator, who is not such. is void, and the levy of an execution issuing on such judgment passes no title to the property levied on. ERROR to the circuit court for the district of South Carolina. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. 1 The commissions of the Hon. G. DUVALL, and the Hon. J. STORY, bear date November 18, 1811. 2 R. RUSH, Esq., was commissioned as Attorney-General, February 10, 1814, in place of William Pinkney, Esq., resigned. Griffith v. Frazier. 8 C. Jones and Pinkney, attorney-general, for the plaintiff. Harper, for the defendant. * [19] MARSHALL, C. J., delivered the opinion of the court, as follows: The plaintiff in error, who was also plaintiff in the circuit court, brought a writ of trespass quære clausum fregit, in order to try his title to certain lands, lying in the district of South Carolina, which were in possession of the defendant. The title of the plaintiff, which constituted the sole question in the cause, appeared, on the trial, to be as follows: Joseph Salvadore, being seized of the lands in which the trespass is alleged to have been committed, departed this life some time in the year 1786, having first made his last will in writing, in which he named several executors, one of whom, Joseph Dacosta, made probate of the will, and took upon himself the burden of executing the same; after which, in the year 1789, he left the State of South Carolina, and resided in Georgia. In the year 1790, letters of administration on the goods of Salvadore, unadministered by Dacosta, his qualified executor, were granted to James Lamotte. In August, 1786, a judgment was obtained by Daniel Bourdeaux against Salvadore. In January, 1791, a thirty day rule, which, by an act of the State of South Carolina, was, in certain cases, [ *20 ] substituted in the place *of a scire facias, was issued to revive this judgment against Lamotte, as administrator of Salvadore. This rule being served and returned, the following indorsement was made on it, "15th March, 1791, made absolute, subject to a future argument." "Fi. fa. 16th April, 1791." An execution issued on this judgment, under which the land was sold, and was conveyed by the sheriff to Peter Freneau, by a deed dated the 6th day of June, 1791. On the 16th of July, 1796, a decree was rendered in the suit. Pierce Butler v. Daniel Bourdeaux and Peter Freneau, directing the said Peter to convey to such person as Pierce Butler should appoint. In pursuance of this decree, Peter Freneau conveyed to Samuel Jackson, under whom the plaintiff claims by regular conveyances. On the motion of the defendant, the circuit court instructed the jury that the letters of administration granted to James Lamotte, were totally void; that therefore the judgment of Bourdeaux was not revived against the estate of Salvadore; that the sale and conveyance by the sheriff passed no title to the purchaser; and that the |