a and b two bind creditor take joint letter of Administration a get into his  hand best part of the asset and retain for his own debt against b on a bill by  b a be decree to account for the reason in the margin per his honour Feb  chapman and turner vin Abr pl see SC Mod in this case the question be whether  a by this have get such a legal advantage as to be entitle to keep the asset  and so b lose his debt and per the master of the roll the rule of this court  in case of retainer be unless the party can show a legal right to retain we  never give it he if he can show a legal right we never take it away from he  the question then be whether at law this be a good retainer at law no doubt a  executor or administrator have a right in case of debt in equal degree to  prefer one to another and to retain for his own in the first place against any  other creditor the reason be not as some of the old book say because the law  leaves it to the conscience of the executor which debt to prefer for that his  honour say he take to be a fictitious reason be contrary to the general  principle of law for a man to become judge in his own Cause and be leave to  determine which debt ought first to be pay his own or another but the true  reason be because if a retainer be not allow a executor in case of a  deficiency of asset will have no possible way of obtain satisfaction for his  debt for at law there be no such thing as split of debt or make a rateable  proportion and therefore he can come in upon a average with the rest of the  creditor nor have the advantage of another creditor who bring his action in  due time may recover his debt though there be not enough asset at last to  answer all demand upon the testator for he can sue himself so that this  privilege of retain be find on the policy of the commonlaw that executor may  not be deprive of one advantage without have another in lieu of it and that  they may not be in a worse condition than all mankind beside but this be not a  case between a executor or administrator and a creditor but between two joint  administrator who be both in the same condition in all respect now here have  be no authority cite to support a retainer by one administrator against the  other nor do his honour see how there ever can be one because a administrator  can bring no sort of action against his companion wherein this point may have  be settle at law neither do the reason of the law justify such a retainer for  administrator be consider but as one person in law the possession of the one  be the possession of the other the receipt of one be the receipt of the other  and therefore the retainer of one must be consider as the retainer of the  other and must enure for the mutual benefit in the discharge of the debt of  both in proportion then the consequence will be very bad be a retainer  Allowable in this case for administrator must fight for the asset if get the  sole possession will entitle either to a separate right in they so that as no  legal right of retainer have be show the rule must take place that he who can  retain in law can in equity that the plaintiff be entitle to a equal  distribution of asset be a equal creditor accord to conscience and equity and  defendant must be decree to account per his honour ibidem equity case abridge  er p d OF administration durante Minori lifetime