Abraham against sir james Cunningham enter mich car roll Middlesex eject keb  vent Mod levinz Nels Abr by special verdict it be find that sir David  Cunningham be possess for a long term of the land in question and make David  Cunningham his executor and die David prove the will and make hay and two  other his executor and die they do not prove the will and thereupon the  archbishop not know of the will of David grant administration de good non to  Bradburn have no notice of David will who afterward for l duly pay by the  lessor of the plaintiff grant he the term after that the two name executor die  and hay the three renounce afterward a citation issue to Bradburn to revoke  the letter of administration grant to he which be afterward declare to be  invalid and revoke by sentence on this creation then the archbishop grant  administration de good non to the defendant the question be whether the  administration grant before the renunciation of the survive executor of David  be good or not though herenounced afterward sander for the plaintiff grant it  to be the only question and far that if the executor bad accept or prove the  will the administration have be void he argue that a executor can be make  without his own assent pl Com case of fox and Greisbrooke and before that e  the administration good until the will prove and by the same reason good until  the will appear and it be say there that the ordinary may grant administration  but if the executor Jones t afterward Jones t er p prove the will the  administration be void it seem not void if the executor do not prove it and in  this case it shall be make good by the renunciation afterward dyer Isteds case  he also say that if a executor in his own wrong be condemned in debt have  possession of a term execution shall be make of that term by become fac and  shall not be avoid for otherwise such action will be vain and the  administrator here shall not be in a worse case than such executor levins for  the defendant the and be argue that the executor of a executor have as good  title to the good of the first testator as the first executor and that the  ordinary have no power in such case for by h in case where one die intestate  or the executor refuse therefore not before refusal and be cite the say case  of fox the executor have a absolute property in all the good in possession  before probate and may release thing in action though he can sue and if the  sale by the executor be good how shall the grant of the administrator be good  h f the renunciation shall never make the administration good by relation for  it be void not voidable only   a and as to the inconvenience that be object it  be the same if the executor have prove and as great on the other side  afterward upon another argument judgement be give for the defendant by all the  court the case be clear in their judgement on the authority of the say case of  fox and Greisbrooke