atkins case hudson v hudson November the that SC cite Ves the plaintiff and W  h administrator to I h empower the defendant by letter of attorney to get in  the intestate effect in Flanders v h afterward settle the account with they  receive the balance give a general release and then die the plaintiff as  survive administrator pray the state account and release may be set aside as  be settle without his privity one administrator can release a debt so as to  bind his fellow otherwise as to a executor for each entire represent the  testator but the release of one administrator may bar both if releasee be  Accountable to they in their own right and not as administrator the release  here be unfair obtain though effectual in law be set aside in equity John  Hudson die intestate and unmarried letter of administration to he be grant to  the plaintiff and one William Hudson who prevail on the plaintiff to join and  execute several letter of attorney to the defendant Benjamin Hudson then in  Flanders and also to another defendant Joseph Hudson then in London empower  they to get in the effect of the intestate after the defendant have receive  some of the intestates estate and effect William Hudson joint administrator  with the plaintiff settle a account with the defendant who be his son receive  the balance and give they a general release and then die afterward the survive  administrator file his bill to set asideathe defendant state account and the  release and to have satisfaction suggest that they ought not to bind he be  settle without his privity the defendant in their answer insist on their state  account and release and the question be if the release will bar the survive  administrator Lord chancellor there be two question in this case which be mere  matter of law first whether a release of a debt or conveyance of a term by one  administrator will bind his companion where there be a joint administration  grant second whether the defendant act and collect part of the estate under a  letter of attorney from both the administrator will vary the case as to the  first point I be of opinion that one administrator can release a debt or  convey a interest so as to bind the other and that the case of a administrator  differ from that of a executor it be certain that executor have such a power  and the reason be that each executor be consider as entire represent the  testator see Bac ab if a action be bring against joint executor who plead  different plead some book say that plea atkins er p shall be receive which be  most for the benefit of the testator effect and this show each executor may  plead in right of his testator atkins but the case of executor differ  essential from that of administrator executor receive all their power and  interest from the testator and though before they can maintain a action they  must prove the will vide will v rich post vol note yet the probate be only a  declaration of the proper court that they be executor which by the law of  Scotland be call confirm the executor to the testator and be the same in  effect as be do here and still the interest arise not from the probate but  from the testator therefore a executor may release a debt or assign a term  before probate dyer a pl mead v Lord orrery post vol and if after probate he  sue for the same the precedent act do by he may be plead in bar if a executor  appoint another to so his executor and die he be immediate representative to  the first testator but on the death of a administrator his whole interest  determine and administration de good non c must be grant so if a creditor make  his debtor his executor the debt be total extinguish and can be revive so  Wankford v Wankford salk but it seem that the appointment of a debtor executor  be only part with the action but the executor be consider as a trustee for the  money so owe to the testator and such money in equity be consider as part of  the testator personal estate holiday v Boas roll ab Askwith v chamberlain  Charles Rep field v clark ibidem fox v fox post Carey v Goodinge bro Charles  Rep though the executor shall afterward die intestate and administration de  good non c of the first testator shall be grant but if a debtor be appoint  administrator that be no extinguishment of the debt but a suspension of the  action and his representative on his death will be Chargeable at the suit of  the administrator de good non c of the first intestate salk   these case  evince the different foundation on which the right of executor and  administrator depend the power of the latter arise whole from the ordinary of  the former from the testator the right of a administrator be express so  different in the book as if they be at a loss how to describe it in   b it be  call a authority because the administrator have nothing to his own use in  Vaughan it be with great propriety call a private office of trust for it be  more than a bare authority and less than the interest of a executor which seem  to have be the foundation of Lord cowpers opinion in vern if therefore a  administration be in the nature of a office what will the consequence be in  the present case for if a office be grant to two they must join in the execute  the act of the office and one can act unless in the name of both and on this  kind of reason the present case will depend there have be no case cite except  dyer and   b which turn on the repeal of letter of administration but I have  the opinion of a very great man Lord Bacon in his element that vol new edit p  which seem to correspond with I as to the nature of the different right of  executor and administrator therefore I thin the release of one administrator  will not bar the other but the author of the touchstone make a qure as to this  point see sheep touch and the master of the roll in jacomb v Harwood Ves say  that it be hold in a case of Willand v Fenn in b r that one administrator  stand on the same ground and foundation with one executor atkins the next  question be of another consideration whether the defendant have act under the  letter of attorney of both administrator and be therefore Accountable to  themselves in their own right and not as administrator the release of one may  not bar both and I think it may the case consider they as represent the  intestate and sue in that right where they must name themselves administrator  and so say Lord Bacon but here both administrator execute a letter of attorney  to empower the defendant to collect the effect and receive the intestate debt  and so far as they have act under that authority they be answerable to the  administrator in their own right and may be charge as their bailiff and  receiver and they need not name themselves administrator and if nonsuit they  must pay cost as sue in jure to appropriate if there be a joint debt owe to  two and one release the action be go whether it arise on bind or simple  contract it have be say that some part of the intestate estate have be receive  by the defendant in specie upon which the right of administration shall  subsist but apprehend in such case the release of one administrator will be a  bar for those thing be in effect deliver to they by the administrator  themselves for which they must sue in their own right and therefore the  release of one bar the other for though in trover they may name themselves  administrator yet they need not do it then the question be what a court of  equity will do with a release that be effectual at law if it be unfair and  collusive a court of equity ought to set it aside and upon the evidence here  the release appear to be unfair obtain be set aside and as to the defendant  Benjamin and Joseph Hudson his lordship declare that atkins er p the plaintiff  be not bind by the account state and the release execute by their father from  demand a account against they in a court of equity and therefore a account be  direct accord Reg lib a fol n b when this case of Hudson v Hudson come before  Lord Talbot on a plea of a state account and the release he hold that if one  administrator die the right of administration will survive without new letter  of administration vide vern but the master of the roll in jacomb v Harwood Ves  say that the ecclesiastical court now hold it necessary in the case of two  administrator to come back to they on the death of one for a probate