GAINKS V. HAMMOND'S ADm'e. 451 �cution sale in 1823. Haramond had no otiiiffr prOperty. The bill alleged that Eelf and Chew were executors in their own wrong; that complainant only had a right tq the mouey con- verted to Hammond ; that the judgment against hiiu, is evi- dence of the fact of his receiving aud converting the money, and that, under the facts, she is entitled to judgment for the money converted, with interest, for which shc prays. The bill sought to state ground of excuse for a failure to bring suit before, alleging the absconding of liammond from Mis-, souri; that no letters had been taken out on his estate before I879; complainant's difficulty in establishing her rights under Clark's last will ; the fact that Hammond's estate never was seized of the property until 1879; and her ignorance that Hammond had any title whatever to the land until that year. The demurrer was both general and specifie, and raised the question whether the claim was not barred by the statute of limitations of Missouri terri tory and state, allowing on\y five years for the bringing of an action like the present one. �Britton A. Hill and N. Oscar Gray, for plaintiff. �CUne,Jamiso7i e Day and D. T. Jewett, for defendant. �Treat, D. J. I commenced to write an elaborate opinion, but found it expanding to such an extent, that, for want of time, I abandoned the purpose. The case, as presented, involves many serious questions, if considered seriatim, but there is one controUing view which disposes of the whole matter. �The plaintiff was sui juris more than 50 years ago, and if she succeeded (which is doubtful) to the rights of Eelf and Chew under the judgment of 1819 in their favor, no adequate reason bas been assigned in law or equity for her failure to pursue her rights thereunder prior to 1879 or 1880. If she cannot have the benefit of said judgment in her own right, she is in a still worse condition. Eelf and Chew, under the will of 1811, have been found, judicially, to have acted with- out autbority; for said will, after protracted litigation, was held to have been superseded by the will of 1813. Hence, what Eelf and Chew did, and what their agent, Hammond, did, was void, or voidable, as against said persons; and she ��� �
