ambler case read against truelove if a executor administer part of the asset  he shall be charge with the receipt though he renounce the executorship and  pay the money to the other executor who prove the will lib Reg b fol a in  chancery saint and d may before sir Thomas clarke master of the roll in the  absence of Lord chancellor bill by plaintiff as residuary legatee for a  account of the personal estate of Thomas read possess by the defendant  truelove and more the defendant truelove after have possess asset to the  amount of pound which he insist be not receive by he how executor renounce  administration and on the same day more prove the will afterward truelove pay  the pound to more and by a authority from more who live in London at a  distance from the effect receive other part of the asset to the amount of  pound and pay the same to more which be prove in the cause and admit by more  in his answer the master of the roll give his opinion that as truelove have  administer though without prove the will the renunciation afterward be void  and that he ought to be charge with all the subsequent receipt as executor and  in the first instance without decree against more though more be not prove to  be insolvent and decree accord without prejudice to any demand be may have  against more for the money which he have pay to he vide Hensloes case   b  Wantyford v Wantyford salk Harrison v Graham hill ms foe and p wms note see  Underwood v Stevens Meriv Lord Shipbrook v Lord hinchingbroke Ves Ves in Doyle  v black Sch Lef Lord Redesdale say executor must either whole renounce or if  they act to a certain extent as executor and take upon they that character  they can be discharge only by administer the effect themselves or by put  administration into the hand of a court of equity in Doyle v black a name  executor in a will act on behalf of particular legatee disclaim a intention of  interfere general he afterward renounce formal in favour of b who be name a  trustee in the same will who thereupon obtain administration cum testament  fastening b possess himself of the asset and afterward die insolvent a be  liable as executor notwithstanding his renunciation and be answerable for the  act of b it appear that he have a control over the asset and b be consider as  have obtain possession thereof by his mean it be a general rule with respect  to executor that if a executor do any act by which money get into possession  of another executor the former be equal answerable with the latter Langford v  Gascoigne Ves unless that act be positive necessary for the purpose of the  testator estate Hovey v Blakeman Ves see Bacon v Bacon Ves for case where  executor have or not be hold liable for join in a receipt see exparte belcher  exparte parson ante in walker v Symonds Swanst it be say by Lord Eldon that  executor seem former to have be charge on much short principle if they join  unnecessary though without take the whole of the money that rule be now alter  it may be lie down now as in price v Stokes Ves that though one executor have  join in a receipt yet whether he be liable will depend upon his act and see  Doyle v black Sch Lef in mad see cross v smith east vin Abr decree declare  that the defendant truelove ought to stand charge with the several sum of  money part of the say testator estate receive by he and suggest to have be pay  over by he to the defendant more but this to be without prejudice as in the  text ambler er p