case Fotherby versus pate February a administrator durante those inferior in  rank tate be in general a competent witness after the administration be  determine a trustee be consider in this court as have no interest at all and  be examine by order every day but a executor or administrator in trust have be  determine not to be capable of be examine the ground of this distinction be  that a executor be answerable for devastavits c which may give a improper bias  to his mind and the possibility of maladministration have induce this court to  reject he as a witness the question be whether mrs pate who be a  administratrix durante those inferior in rank tate of a executor can be a  competent witness after her administration be determine the administration  determine in and the bill be bring in atkins Lord chancellor order the charge  in the bill against mrs pate to be read which be to this effect that she have  possess the personal estate of the testator which have hitherto be get in and  have not account or deliver it over in the joint answer of the executor and  administratrix they admit they receive more than sufficient to pay the  testator debt and legacy and though they do not in express word submit to  account yet in case the plaintiff be a just demand they submit to pay the  general question depend upon two particular one first whether she may in  general be examine second whether under particular circumstance she may as to  the first I do not remember this point to have come before the court but be of  opinion take it as a general question she may the distinction to be sure be  very well know between a executor in trust and a trustee vide Mabank v Metcalf  atk and the case there cite a trustee though he have the legal estate be  consider as have no interest at all in this court and be examine by order  every day but a person executor in trust or administrator in trust have be  determine not to be capable of be examine possible the reason of the  difference be pretty nice and it be very difficult to find out any real or  solid foundation for it but I to the ground to be he be consider as represent  the testator estate and be answerable for devastavits c and that may give a  improper bias to his mind for as the law consider he as owner of the estate  the possibility of maladministration have induce this court to reject he as a  witness but the case of a administrator durante those inferior in rank tate be  certain different it be true he represent the testator while his  administration subsist but when determine have nothing more to do such  administrator can sue that be certain nor can be call to a account but by the  executor and whatever he may do during his administration be not answerable to  any other person and if a action at law shall be bring against the executor he  may be introduce as a evidence for the executor atkins it be hard to say take  it on the general question that such a person shall be allow to be examine at  law and not in this court for here it go further in some instance than they do  by suffer trustee to be examine and therefore will in this respect shut out  light they let in at law this administrator be little more than a person  appoint ad to obtain by begging good or a administrator pendent light and  these be always admit as witness after he have possess himself of effect if  you bring he before the court without the executor he may demurrer for that  cause but as this court will allow you to follow asset into any hand if you  will by proper charge show he have not account to his executor but fraudulent  and by collusion detain any part there be no doubt but you may maintain such a  bill against a administrator durante those inferior in rank tate as to the  second question whether under particular circumstance he may be examine I  think he may but be of opinion that there be not such circumstance in this  case as will entitle her to be examine for it be charge by the bill that she  have not account and deliver over the asset receive by her to the executor  that charge alone will not be sufficient but then in the joint answer with the  executor instead of insist she have account and therefore that the bill shall  be dismiss as against her she submit to pay c atkins er p the answer may have  be frame in such a manner as to make her a witness she have put in such a one  as will make her liable to account on her submission to pay and therefore she  be a incompetent witness and reject her accord