An administrator cannot ratify decedent's void transactions, nor make any contracts for him ; Smith v. Brennan, 62 Mich. 349, 28 N. W. 892, 4 Am. St. Rep. 867.
An administrator is liable for torts and for gross negligence in managing his intes tate's property. This species of misconduct is called in law a devastavit; Cartwright v. Cartwright, 4 Ilayn. (Tenn.) 134; Jeffreys v. Yarborough, 16 N. C. 516 ; In re Holladay's Estate, 18 Or. 168, 22 Pac. 750. Such is neg ligence in collecting notes or debts ; In re Merkel's Estate, 131 Pa. 584, 18 Att. 931; an unnecessary sale of property at a dis count ; Pinckard v. Woods, 8 Gratt. (Va.) 140; paying undue funeral expenses; 1 R & Ad. 260 ; and the like mismanagements. So he may be liable for not laying out assets for the benefit of the estate, or for turning the money to his own profit or advantage. In such cases be is answerable for both prin cipal and interest. In England he may be charged with increased interest for money withheld by fraud ; 2 Cox, Ch. 113; 4 Ves. 620; and he is sometimes made chargeable with compound Interest in this country ; Jen nison v. Hapgood, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 77. Fi nally, a refusal to account for funds, or an unreasonable delay in accounting, raises a presumption of a wrongful use of them ; Johnson v. Beauchamp, 5 Dana (Ky.) 70;
Evans v. Iglehart, 6 Gill & J. (Md.) 186. If he receives rents and profits of land for a long period without accounting, he is liable to the heirs for the reasonable rental value of the land for the entire period; Shufiler v. Turner, 111 N. C. 297, 16 S. E. 417.
Where real estate is sold by executors to a co-executor, the sale is voidable at the in stance of those interested in the estate; In re Richard's Estate, 154 Cal. 478, 98 Pac. 528. One executor may sue another where questions arise between the latter and the estate, jeopardizing the rights of parties in interest ; Monmouth Inv. Co. v. Means, 151 Fed. 159, 80 C. C. A. 527.
After the debts hdve been paid and the final account passed, and a legacy ordered paid, an action will lie against the executor to recover it; Anderson v. Patty, 168 Ill. App. An insolvent bank cannot sue an executor for an assessment on the stock of his dece dent, which was levied after a final decree for the distribution of the estate ; Union Sav ings Bank of San Jose v. De Laveaga, 150 Cal. 395, 89 Fee. 84.