An executor may sell terms for years, and may even make a good title against a specific legatee, unless the sale be fraudulent. So he may underlet a term. He may indorse a promissory note or a bill payable to the tes tator or his order ; Miller v. Helm, 2 Smedes & S. (Miss.) 687. The rule that executors have no power to confess judgment is not applicable to offers of judgments to firm cred itors, by a firm composed of a surviving mem ber and the executor of a deceased member, conducting the interests of the deceased therein ; Columbus Watch Co. v. Hodenpyl, 61 Hun 557, 16 N. Y. Supp. 337; but they may compromise claims ; Bacon v. Crandon, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 79; Chase v. Bradley, 26 Me. 531; or submit matters in dispute to arbi tration ; Wills v. Rand's Adm'rs, 41 Ala. 198 ; Wood v. Tunnicliff, 74 N. Y. 38. Without the sanction of the probate court, he has no pow er to bind the estate by contract, even for the necessities of infant devisees ; Roscoe v. McDonald, 91 Mich. 270, 51 N. W. 939. His right to employ counsel depends upon the right to litigate ; In re Riviere's Estate, 8 Cal. App. 773, 98 Pac. 46.
Wife's chores. In general, chores in action given to the wife either before or after mar riage survive to her, provided her husband have not reduced them to possession befoie his death. A promissory note given to the wife during coverture comes under this rule in England ; 12 M. & W. 355; 7 Q. B. 864 ; but not so in this country generally ; Jones' Adm'r v. Warren's Adm'r, 4 Dana (Ky.) 333 ;
Fourth Ecclesiastical Society in Middletown v. Mather, 15 Conn. 587; Savage v. King, 17 Me. 301. Mere intention to reduce chores into possession is not a reduction, nor is a mere appropriation of the fund ; 5 Ves. 515 ; Petrie v. Clark, 11 S. & R. (Pa.) 377, 14 Am. Dec. 636; In re Hinds' Estate, 5 Whart. (Pa.) 138, 34 Am. Dec. 542 ; Wardlow v. Tray's Adra'r, 2 Hill, Eq. (S. C.) 644 ; Pitts v. Cur tis, 4 Ala. 350 ; Curry v. Fulkinson's Ex'rs, 14 Ohio 100.
A statutory right of a husband to sue for a chose in action of his wife without admin istration is confined to the cases expressly declared by the statute and will not be ex tended by construction ; Ferguson v. R. Co., 6 App. D. C. 525.
When the same persons are both executors and trustees, and as executors have paid the debts and passed their final account, they no longer hold the assets as executors but as trustees; [1913] A. C. 76. But where the same person was appointed executor and tes tamentary trustee, and he qualified as execu tor, but gave no undertaking as trustee and secured no order for his discharge as executor, and he had failed to file current accounts until compelled to render a final account, it was held that his relation as executor re mained and that the court was empowered to direct the final accounting ; In re Roach's Estate, 50 Or. 179, 92 Pac. 118.