Case Name: SIMON, Administrator of SIMON, for the use of SIMON, against ALBRIGHT
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1825-05-23
Citations: 12 Serg. & Rawle 429
Docket Number: 
Parties: SIMON, Administrator of SIMON, for the use of SIMON, against ALBRIGHT.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Sergeant & Rawle)
Volume: 12
Pages: 429–430

Head Matter:
[Lancaster,
May 23, 1825.]
SIMON, Administrator of SIMON, for the use of SIMON, against ALBRIGHT.
IN ERROR.
One administrator cannot sue his co-administrator, on a loan, from the latter, to the intestate.
Nor will it enable him to sue, if he assign such bond to a third person, (a creditor of the intestate) and then obtain an assignment from him.
Qaery, what remedy there is ?
This case came up by writ of error, from the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon county, where a verdict and judgment were rendered in favour of the defendant in error, who was defendant below, and was argued by
Weidman, for the plaintiff in error.
Wright, contra.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is an action brought by Ilenry Simon, one of the administrators of George Simon, deceased, for his own use, against John JUbrighi, his co-administrator, on a bond from the defendant to the intestate. The question is, whether the action be sustainable. We can perceive no principle, on which it can be supported. The two administrators jointly represent the intestate, and one has no more right to recover a debt, than the other. But the plaintiff has got himself into a difficulty, from which he wishes this court to relieve him. He assigned the defendant's bond, to a third person, from whom he received a re-assignment, and now claims the debt as his own property. This is a difficulty which seems to be of-his own seeking. If things had been permitted to to take their usual course, the defendant could not have sheltered himself from an action, by any creditor of George Simon, or other person interested in his estate. The defat due from the defendant was assets in his own hands, which, if not accounted for according to law, his administration bond might have been put in suit. What remedy under the existing circumstances, the plaintiff can have, for the recovery of this debt, for his own use, the court is not bound to say. They are to decide whether the action which he has brought, be maintainable. Their opinion is against the action, and therefore the judgment is to be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.