case fellow versus mitchell and Owen Lord keeper Cowper vern two trustee in a  mortgage join in a assignment of the term and in a receipt for the whole each  receive a moiety only of the mortgagemoney to be answerable only for what they  respective receive two trustee in a mortgage for pound join in a assignment of  the term and in a acquittance for the money and each receive a moiety after  which one prove insolvent the question be whether the other trustee shall be  Chargeable with the whole to prove that each trustee shall answer for no m  over money than he have himself receive be cite cro car Townley v Chalenor and  Bridgman the same case also Heaton v mariot in canc on exception Oct will  reheard Jan Ann Reg and late in chancery the case of woodcock and Widdall who  be trustee by Mr lyster will where Widdall receive all and though woodcock  join in the sale to the purchaser yet he be not charge Vernon content each  trustee shall be liable for the whole the peer William case of foster v  Townley be only that one trustee shall not be charge where he have not join in  receipt with the other in woodcock case the trustee who the party will have  charge join in the conveyance but not in the receipt of the considerationmoney  endorse in Allen and Wilkens case last lend vacation both trustee be charge  with each other receipt freeman on the same side cite the case of Murrell v  Pitt afterward affirm on a appeal vern at the roll last Hillary term where two  executor trustee join in a transfer of eastindia stock and receive in moieties  and on one prove insolvent the other be charge with the whole also the case of  Widmore v bind twice hear before Lord summer two executor die leave each a  executor decree at first that they shall be answerable only respective for the  receipt of their several testator but upon a rehear the court charge each with  the whole cur this be a case of difficulty the last Lord keeper take time  about it it be attend with circumstance somewhat uncommon for the beneficiary  and trust have admit that he be present and consent to the payment of the  money in moieties and that at his importunity the trustee join in a  acquittance for the whole the case of Heaton v Marriot be a express authority  for the trustee that he shall be only Chargeable for his own receipt it may be  reasonable where upon the proof it can be peer William distinguish how much be  receive by the one trustee and how much by the other to charge each with the  whole for in such case the trustee be to blame for not keep distinct account  it be like one throw corn or money into another heap where there be no reason  that be who make this difficulty shall have the whole on the contrary because  it can be distinguish lie shall have no part see pre Charles in Murrell and  Pitt case it be a voluntaryact in they be executor to sell the eastindia stock  but here what the trustee do be necessary for the satisfaction of the  mortgagee it seem to be substantial injustice to decree a man to answer for  money which he do not receive at the same time that the charge upon he by his  join in the receipt be but notional wherefore let each trustee be discharge of  the trust by answer for so much only as he have actual receive Widnall v bind  Reg lib b fol and fol what appear of this case in the register book be as  follow Thomas Fulshurst have devise his real and personal estate to Lem and  Richard upon several trust and to pay the residue to plaintiff and appoint Lem  and Richard executor the original bill be file against Lem and Richard for a  account of the personal estate and the produce of a copyhold estate which they  have sell before answer Lem and Richard both die peer William er p Lem leave  mary bind a infant his executrix Richard leave Sarah Richard his executrix the  executrixs by their answer to the bill of revivor after state the personal  estate of Fulshurst to be very inconsiderable admit that Lem and Richard have  sell the copyhold estate for pound and upward without state to who particular  the purchase money be pay but insist that they have account for the whole to  the plaintiff they then admit asset of their respective testator No evidence  appear to have be read on the hear decree that defendant bind shall account  for and pay the real and personal estate of Fulshurst possess by Lem in his  lifetime or by her the defendant since his death and that the defendant Sarah  Richard shall account for and pay what be receive by Richard in his lifetime  or by her the say defendant since his death the petition of rehear prefer by  the plaintiff complain that Lem and Richard have receive the money joint they  ought to be joint answerable to the plaintiff the plaintiff not be able to  prove how they divide such money nor ought they to be involve in a examination  or account touch that matter but that as the decretal order be draw each  defendant be only charge with what be receive by her own testator whereupon it  be order that the say defendant shall come to a general account for what their  testator receive out of Thomas Fulshursts estate and if the master in take  such account shall find any difficulty he be to report the same special to the  court and the deposit be to be return to the plaintiff the bill be file by one  trustee against the other and the beneficiary and trust to be discharge from  the trust upon payment of what he have actual receive and it be so decree Reg  lib a fol see post the case of Churchill v Hopson and salk where the like  opinion be deliver by Lord Harcourt the distinction between executor and  trustee as to this point appear also in Applyn v brewer pre Charles  attorneygeneral v Randall vin Abr pl ex part belchier Amb leigh v Barry atk in  Westley v clarke Eden and see harden v parson Eden which come on before Lord  Northington on the that of June his lordship express his disapprobation of  this distinction between executor and trustee the case be this m smith by his  will give the two plaintiff legacy of pound and pound and the residue of his  personal estate to his widow and appoint clarke bet and Thompson his executor  with a clause that one of his executor shall not be answerable for the act of  the other the testator die on d of June part of his estate to the amount of  pound be at the time of his death out on mortgage Thompson who be a attorney  after the testator death call in the mortgage and receive the money and  afterward send his clerk with the assignment of the mortgage to his two  coexecutors who execute the same and sign the receipt endorse thereon Thompson  become a bankrupt on that July without have account for this money and the  plaintiff the legatee file this bill to charge clarke and bet with this money  receive by Thompson it be in proof in the cause that Thompson be much in the  confidence of the testator in his lifetime and act as his attorney that  Thompson continue in good credit till about five week before his bankruptcy  and that the pound be pay to he long before that time on the hear of the cause  the several case abovementioned be cite Lord Northington this claim be find on  the notion of a general rule have be establish in this court that where  executor join in a receipt they themselves be all liable in solid figure  because their join be unnecessary and that a different rule have be establish  with respect to trustee who join in receipt namely that they be not answerable  in solid figure but in proportion only to what they receive but in my opinion  this distinction do not seem to have be take with that precision which be  necessary to form or establish a general rule for where trustee join in a  receipt that may of itself be such a evidence of payment of money to they  joint as will be sufficient to charge each in solid figure until other  evidence appear to the contrary as on the other hand the general receipt of  executor may be so far rebut by other circumstance as in Churchill v Hopson as  to make he only who actual receive liable the case of Churchill v Hopson be a  particular case ground on circumstance do not furnish any general rule a joint  receipt give by executor be only a strong proof of their have all receive the  money than that of a joint receipt give by trustee because it be not necessary  for conformity that all the executor shall join in give a receipt whereas it  be peer William er p otherwise with trustee but I do not see any ground for a  court of conscience to say I will make you liable for the whole money although  you never receive a farthing of it mere because you have join in a formal  receipt the receive the money and the sign the receipt be separate and  distinct act the latter be only as far as it go evidence of the former the  equity in this case be so obvious that it will weigh with I if there be no  direct precedent to the contrary against any arbitrary rule lie down in any  age this case be strengthen by the proviso in the will that one executor shall  not be answerable for the act of the other which although usual in settlement  be not so frequent in will but be a good proviso between executor and legatee  who take under the same will the material part of this transaction be the  receive the money which be by Thompson only the other sign the receipt be only  the form I be therefore of opinion and declare that the defendant clarke and  bet be not liable to make good the sum of pound no part of which come to their  hand the same have be receive by a c Thompson the bankrupt N B this decree  appear only in the register minute book and as to the ground of it see more in  Churchill v Hobson post et vide sadler v Hobbs bro c c Scurfield v how be bro  c c and in ex part Singleton in linc inn hall Aug Lord chancellor refuse to  charge the survive assignee of the bankrupt with money receive by his  coassignee although they have join in the receipt and although they bad before  agree to pay the money to e from time to time receive by they into the hand of  a banker for safe custody and his lordship express take the abovementioned  distinction between executor and trustee