#### Marie Slad et al., by Marie Slad, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Frank G. Hajicek, Defendant in Error.

Gen. No. 21,608.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles H. Bowles, Judge, presiding. Heard in the”Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed February 7, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Marie Slad, Vaclav Slad, Frank Slad, Louis Slad, Mary Sykora, Emil Slad, Emily Slad, Charles Slad, and Anton Slad, Bessie Slad, Joseph Slad and Rosie Slad, minors, by Marie Slad, their next friend, plaintiffs, against Frank Gr. Hajicek, defendant, to recover for alleged conversion -by defendant,¡¡pf moneys collected by him as agent for plaintiffs’ ae*397ceased ancestor prior to the latter’s death. From a judgment dismissing the action at plaintiffs’ cost, on demurrer to the declaration, plaintiffs bring error.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Executors and administrators, § 70 * —what constitutes part of personal estate of decedent. Money collected by an agent and held by him for investment for his principal becomes on the principal’s death a part of his personal estate and subject to ad-n ministration by the Probate Court.

2. Courts, § 104 * —when Probate Court has jurisdiction of action against administrator of estate collected as agent for decedent prior to latter’s death. Where a declaration filed against the administrator of an estate individually by the widow and heirs of the deceased charged him with converting funds of the deceased collected by him prior to the death of the decedent and held for investment for the decedent’s benefit and which were not reported by him as administrator as assets of the estate, held, on demurrer that an action at law for such conversion would not lie, as the Probate • Court had taken and retained jurisdiction and would have full power on proper petition to afford relief.

The declaration and bill of particulars set up that the defendant had been appointed administrator of the estate of Frank Slad, deceased, the husband of the plaintiff Marie Slad and father of the other plaintiffs, and that he had not inventoried as administrator any part of the sum alleged to have been collected by him as agent for the deceased and to have been retained for the purpose of investment for the benefit of the deceased.

Charles E. Selleck, for plaintiffs in error.

Joseph Z. Klenha, for defendant in error;. Hwass & Luebeck, of counsel.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.