Opinion of the Court by
Beversing.
Jаmes J. Gibson died in 1918, domiciled in and a resident of Bell county, Ky., and the owner of a considerable estate, including real еstate in Bell and Harlan counties, Ky., Claiborne county, Tenn., and Loudoun county, Va. A few months before his death he exeсuted a writing purporting to be his will, in which he nominated as executors his son, T. F. Gibson, and his grandson, Bobert G. Low. By the terms of this instrument all of his рroperty was willed to his widow, children and grandchildren.
The original writing purporting to be decedent’s will was never offered fоr probate in the Bell county court, but on July 30, 1926, was recorded in Loudoun county, Va., and on May 6, 1928, more than ten years aftеr the death of James J. Gibson, a copy of the instrument was recorded in the office of the clerk of the Harlan county, Ky., court, and on June 29, 1928, a copy was recorded in Bell county.
Thereafter, in a suit brought in the Bell circuit court, in which all' of James J. Gibson’s heirs and devisees were defendants, the purported wall was adjudged to be void ‘ and of no forcе or effect because it was not offered for probate in the Bell county *76 court within ten years after the testator’s death, and it was further adjudged that James J. Gibson died intestate. Neither T. F. Gibson nor Robert G. Low, the two executors named in thе will, ever attempted to qualify as such. T. F. Gibson, however, after the death, of his father, took charge of the estate, and managed it until February, 1930, when he and his brother, H. J. Gibson, were adjudged bankrupts by the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. After T. F. Gibson was adjudged a bankrupt, J. M. Brooks was appointed administrator of the estate of'James J. Gibson, deceased, by the Bеll county court, and on June 25, 1930, he brought this suit against T. F. Gibson and the other heirs at law of James J. Gibson, deceased, for a settlement of James J. Gibson’s estate and seeking to recover from T. F. Gibson, as executor de son tort, various rents, royaltiеs, and other money alleged to have been received by him.
It was alleged in the petition that James J. Gibson left lands in Bеll and Harlan counties, some of which were leased for coal-mining purposes, and that T. F. Gibson, assuming to act by virtue оf the authority which was conferred upon him by the will, took possession of the decedent’s estate, and collected all the income therefrom until the year 1930, and had' never made any accounting or settlement of the amounts сollected by him, and it was further alleged that he had collected in' excess of $100,000, for no part of Which he had accounted to the' heirs of James J. Gibson.
A special demurrer to the petition was sustained, and an amended petitiоn was filed, in which it. was alleged that “at the date of the death of'the said J. J. Gibson, deceased, there were due him largе sums of money for rents and royalties and upon other accounts' which'" the defendant, T. F. Gibson, collected and has nоt accounted ford’ A special demurrer to the petition as amended was sustained, and, the plaintiff having declinеd' to plead further; his petition as amended was dismissed and he has appealed.
The lower court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the petition as amended, since ' the administrator clearly was entitled to recover all persоnal property of which the .decedent .died possessed, or the proceeds thereof, ■ unless, as contended by appellee, the claim is barred by.the statute of limitations, or by. the equitable doctrine of laches. An administrator becomes vested with
*77
the title to all personal property of tbe decedent for the purposes of administration, .although the beneficial interest therein vests in the heirs at law. Harding v. Harding,
It is a generally recognized doctrine that letters of administration or testamentary relate back to the intestate’s or testator’s death. See note to Shawnee National Bank v. Van Zant, 26 A. L. R. 1349. The doc-, trine also is well settled in this state that, when a cause of action аccrues to the estate subsequent to the death of the intestate, the statute of limitations will not begin to run until the time of grаnting administration. Beauchamp’s Administrator v. Mudd,
It is argued that, bеcause the heirs at law of the decedent waited more than twelve years before they requested the Bell county court to appoint an administrator for James J. Gibson’s estate, the equitable doctrine of laches aрplies and destroys the right of appellant to maintain this suit. Under no view of the case is the doctrine of laches аpplicable here. “Laches in legal significance is not mere delay, but delay that works a disadvantage to аnother.” McDowell v. Bauman,
It is equally сlear that the administrator of James J. Gibson’s estate has not authority to sue for or collect rents, royalties, and оther income from real estate accruing since the death of James J. Gibson, since the real estate vested in the heirs at law of the decedent, James J. Gibson, as of the date of his death, and any right to sue for rents, royalties, or оther income from the. real estate rests in them. Kelly’s Executor v. Pettus,
Judgment is reversed for proceedings consistent herewith.