¶1Probate Court — Decree—Property Affected.
¶2Upon facts similar , to those in Hodge v. Palms, 68 Fed. 61, a decree of a prohate court, granting administration of the estate of a decedent, cannot aifect property conveyed by such decedent in his lifetime.
¶3*65Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan.
¶4This was a suit by Honori P. Morancy and others against Francis Palms and others to impress a trust upon the legal title to certain lands and for an accounting. The circuit court sustained a demurrer to the bill. Complainants appeal.
¶5Reversed.
¶6Robert B. Lines and Dwight C. Rexford, for appellants.
¶7H. M. Duffield and J. T. Keena, for appellees.
¶8Before TAFT and LURTON, Circuit Judges, and SEVERENS, District Judge.
¶10This is a suit in equity precisely like that of Hodge v. Palms (No. 232; just decided) 68 Fed. 61, in all material particulars. A Spanish land claim of 1790, which is the foundation of this controversy, was sold and conveyed by the original owner, one Miguel Llano, during his life. It was therefore no part of his succession which the parish court undertook to administer. The court below sustained the demurrer of the defendants, and dismissed the bill. For the reasons stated in Hodge v. Palms, we think the decree should be reversed, and the cause remanded, Avith directions to permit the defendants to answer the bill. It is so ordered.