¶1
¶2"Whether they would be liable for a devastavit committed before such grant, is a question not involved in this case, and therefore we express no opinion upon it.
¶3From the bill of exceptions we cannot say that the guardian committed any devastavit, or that the assets in controversy were not in his hands when he took out letters of administration.— Whitworth’s Distributees vs. Oliver et al., 39 Ala. 286.
¶4We do not think that upon this record the appellant had *667the right, at the time he made his motion in the probate court, to have the same granted.
¶5It results that the decree of the probate judge is affirmed.