case hudson versus hudson that July Administration be grant to two one of they  die the administration survive the plaintiff bring his bill as administrator  against the defendant who plead that administration have be grant to the  plaintiff and to another who die before the bill bring and upon that plea the  question be whether when a administration be grant to two and one die the  administration shall cease and be void or whether it shall survive to the  other who be still live case tempt Talbot the court doubt at first and will  hear civilian and accord it be now argue by dr strahan for the plaintiff and  by dr lee for the defendant and he quote the case of Bowden versus Bowden the  that or saint of April where it be adjudge in the court of arch that a  administration do in such case determine and cease and do not survive be but a  authority and no interest Lord chancellor there be authority both way in the  present case videlicet that of Adam and Buckland vern where it be hold by the  Lord Cowper that a administration upon the ground that administration be not a  bare authority but a office for administrator be enable to bring action in  their own name come in the place of executor and therefore the office survive  will survive and that of Bowden versus Bowden where the contrary be determine  in the ecclesiastical court as therefore the precedent be not uniform we must  consider this case accord to the general rule of survivorship which seem to be  pretty much the same both by the common and civil law if a estate for year be  grant to two if they shall so long live when one die the estate be determine  but if a grant be make to two for their life when one die the survivor shall  take the whole accord to Brudenells case   but in auditor curl case   it be  hold that if a office be grant to two there shall be no survivorship of it  without special word we must now consider which of these case resemble the  present one most it can proper be say that there be any such thing as a  administrator before the statute Edward cap l before the statute where one die  intestate the king as pater petri be to take care of his estate and this do in  process of time devolve from the king to the ordinary and the statute of  Westminster cap which be make to compel the ordinary to pay the intestate debt  look as if they have not be very forward in it before but by the Edward the  ordinary be to grant administration and therefore the administrator be the  creature of that statute and be to be consider accord the express word of the  statute enable he to sue and be sue as a executor and since that time case  tempt Talbot it have never be doubt but that the property of the good be well  vest in he since he now represent the intestate in every thing by the word of  the h cap one will imagine that somewhat beneficial if intend to the  administrator by reason of the person there mention to who administration be  to be grant videlicet the most lawful friend for have no benefit be intend to  he why may not the administration be grant to any other as well as to the near  of kin the spiritual court do indeed take bind of the administrator to oblige  they to distribute the estate but as often as they do so they be prohibit by  the temporal court nor do the statute of distribution alter the nature of the  office it make he only to be as it be a trustee for the person entitle to a  distribution and usual for himself as one of they and then if a joint estate  at law will survive why shall not a administration when they both have a joint  estate in it a trust will survive though no way beneficial to the trustee and  the administrator be appoint by the statute to come in lieu of executor the  statute have therefore make a will for he who be dead intestate and the office  of administrator be every way to be compare to that of a executor Bacon law  tract Edward burn Eccles law it have be say indeed that one executor may do  many act which one administrator can do without the other administrator but  that be nothing to the survivorship either for or against it I have all due  regard for the determination in the ecclesiastical court but have likewise a  great deal for those of a noble person who where with as much honour as any  man ever do and he have determine this point in Adam and buckland case I think  it safe for I to follow that authority than any other which may have pass in  the ecclesiastical court sub silence especial when the question arise upon the  construction of several act of parliament the construction of which belong to  the temporal court and so overrule the plea beg lib a fol case tempt Talbot er  p