case Churchill versus lady hobson et all Lord chancellor Harcourt salk Eq can  ab pl two executor join in a receipt and only one of they actual receive the  money both Chargeable to creditor but not to legatee two trustee join in a  receipt and one receive the money only the receive trustee shall be charge sir  Charles Hobson do in his lifetime place great sum of money in the hand of one  Goodwin a banker who at that time and for a considerable time afterward be a  person of very great credit and be cashier to very many money person sir  Charles die and leaves the plaintiff Churchill and Goodwin executor after who  death Goodwin continue in the same credit the plaintiff Churchill pay pound  peer William er p of the money his testator sir Charles into goodwins hand and  several of sir Charles debtor on pay in their debt lid require that when the  pay their money to the executor Goodwin his coexecutor Churchill shall join in  the receipt or this money which accord be do but upon the plaintiff Churchill  join in the receipt Goodwin do on every such payment give note to Churchill by  which it be acknowledge that though the plaintiff Churchill have join peer  William in the receipt yet it be he videlicet Goodwin only who receive the  money and the money which Goodwin thus receive and on payment whereof  Churchill join in the receipt amount to pound after which Goodwin break and  become insolvent the bill be bring by Churchill to be discharge of the  executorship and to be indemnified against the bankruptcy of Goodwin whereupon  it be now object by Mr Vernon that the plaintiff Churchill have join in the  receipt this make he liable for the whole money he admit that in the case of  fellow v Owen ante where a and b be trustee in a mortgage for pound and they  both join in a receipt for the whole money whereas in fact they have receive  each but pound that though Lord keeper wright have decree each shall be liable  for the whole in respect of the receipt that have be give yet Lord Cowper  reverse that decree conceive it to be against natural justice that one shall  be liable for the receipt or act of another though this have be so decree in  the case of two trustee yet it the case of executor it be otherwise because as  one executor alone may give a discharge the join of the other be a unnecessary  act for which reason if the money be lose each shall be liable that accord it  be thus hold in the case of Wilkins v Allen and more particular in that of  murrel v pit vern decree first by sir John Trevor at the roll and affirm  afterward on appeal by Lord Cowper peer William say per Lord chancellor  Harcourt it seem to I unreasonable that one man shall sugar for the default of  another at least the difference ought to be between the case of a creditor and  that of a legatee in the case of creditor who be entitle to the utmost benefit  of the law the join of the executor in the receipt may make each liable for  the whole but when legatee or such as claim under the statute of distribution  be the only person concern and who have no remedy for their demand but in  equity it be altogether unequitable that one executor shall answer for the  receipt of the other the join in the receipt be but matter of form whereas the  substantial part and which alone be to be regard in conscience be the actual  receipt of the money neither do I think the executor Churchill ought to be  Chargeable for the by he pay to Goodwin he have be the cashier with who the  testator in his lifetime choose to intrust his money and therefore the  executor ought not to suffer for have trust he who the testator himself in his  life trust and at his death make one of his executor vide fellow v Mitchell  ante Aplyn v brewer pre Ch anon mos leigh v Barry atk ex part belchier Amb  Westley v clarke ante note Eden read v truelove Amb sadler v Hobbs bro c c  Scurfield v how be Br c c from sadler V Hobbs it appear agree that a trustee  shall not by the mere act of join in a receipt become liable to answer the  money in fact receive by his cotrustee but notwithstanding the inclination of  Lord Harcourt and Lord Northington to favour executor under similar  circumstance where by any act do by one executor any part of the estate come  to the hand of another executor the former will be answerable for his  companion in the same manner as if he have enable a stranger to receive it in  Westley v clarke as the Lord chancellor observe in give judgement in the case  of sadler v Hobbs Thompson have actual receive the money without the  concurrence of the coexecutors and they sign the receipt afterward and that  therefore be not a act which put it in the power of Thompson to get at the  money since in fact he have it at the time and his lordship add that accord to  a note of that case with which he have be furnish by the then master of the  roll sir l Kenyon Lord Northington say he shall have think the coexecutors  liable if they have be present at the time when the money it seem as if Lord  keeper wright have only intimate a opinion of that kind since it do not appear  by the registerbook that he make any decree in that cause peer William er p be  pay as to Churchill v lady Hobson perhaps the circumstance of goodwins have be  the testator banker may have have some weight in the determination the  decision be express put upon that ground by Lord Hardwicke in Harrison v  Graham hill ms which case be as follow Barbara Graham by will appoint her  mother her sister Margaret and Elizabeth and her brother Robert her executor  and die Margaret alone prove the will and act chief as executor and be  describe as the only act one in a letter of attorney execute by the other who  be therein describe as executor to empower Margaret to receive a quantity of  stock Robert by virtue of another letter of attorney execute by the other  executor transfer a quantity of the testatrixs S S stock receive the money and  pay it over the same day to Margaret after this she and the mother die make  Robert their executor it do not appear that Robert have under the first  executorship do any other act as executor beside give the one letter of  attorney and receive the other the question be whether this be such a act of  administration in Robert as shall male he Chargeable as to his own estate the  master have charge he and the case the report Lord Hardwicke the question in  this case be whether or not this defendant have act S a executor and  consequent whether he be Chargeable I agree that there may be case where a  executor may act as a attorney to the other executor if a executor renounce  and then act under a letter of attorney it be no administration for if depend  on the nature of the act accompany with any other act Hereis a will andfour  executor the will be prove by one only with a reservation of the right of the  other three here appear to have be act do by they all and aletter of attorney  give by the defendant together with the other executor to Margaret who indeed  be describe therein as the only act executrix but the defendant describe  himself there as a executor this be clear act as a executor then he afterward  accept another letter of attorney from Margaret and the rest of the executor  shall executor be allow to discharge themselves at their pleasure from be  liable to asset money come into his hand he pay it over to Margaret this cant  discharge he as for the case in will he it must have turn on the other  executor be a banker and as such trust the testator in his lifetime beside be  make his executor at his death for my own part I think the master have err in  fact charge the defendant with the other money receive by Margaret by virtue  of the other letter of attorney for there be a difference between trustee and  executor in this case trustee be not liable for money receive by other trustee  where they have join in a act because of the necessity of their join to make  it valid but where a executor mere as executor join in the receipt of a sum of  money he shall be charge though the other in fact receive in the receipt of  money because his join be quite a unnecessary act Murrell v Cox vern in the  present case the S S company have not think his receipt as executor at all  necessary for the transfer show on the face of it that it be not require  however Westley v clarke be approve by Lord Alvanley in Hovey v Blakeman Ves  and the relaxation of the old rule as to executor though disapprove in many  subsequent case seem to be admit to this extent that the signature of a  receipt by a executor shall not charge he where it appear that the money have  previous come to the hand of his coexecutor so that he do not by give such  receipt abandon any control over it or authorize the payment Bacon v Bacon Ves  chamber v Minchin Ves Brice v Stokes two Ves Langford v Gascoigne ib joy v  Campbell Sch l Doyle v black Sch l Shipbrook v hinchinbrook Ves Underwood v  Stevens mere walker v simons swan and see Balchen v Scott Ves Jun this  distinction be not make by the decree nor have it be adopt in late case vide  sadler v Hobbs bro c c h Reg lib a foe the decree be as follow that it be  refer to Mr orlebar to take a account of the personal estate of sir Charles  Hobson receive by the plaintiff and Goodwin or either of they or by any person  for their or either of their use in the take of which account if the say  master shall find that the say plaintiff join with the defendant Goodwin in  give receipt for any sum of money which be pay to the defendant Goodwin or if  the plaintiff receive any sum of money as part of the testator estate and pay  the same over to Goodwin before the date and issue of the commissionof  bankruptcy against he the plaintiff be to be discharge thereof and all such  sum of money be to stand charge on the defendant peer William er p Goodwin  only and the say plaintiff as executor be to have a satisfaction for such sum  of money so come to the hand of the defendant Goodwin in proportion with his  other creditor and after payment of the say testator debt and legacy it be  order that the surplus of the say testator personal estate be divide accord to  the direction of his will peer William de term S HILLARII