
    Michael Langan et ux. vs. Claiborne Bowman.
    It seems to be settled, that the party entitled to the estate is entitled to the administration ; and where there are several distributees, the one entitled to the largest share in the estate, is entitled to the administration ; and the same rule prevails when the parties claim the right to administer in a representative character. ” ,
    Therefore the guardian of the children of one brother of an intestate, was properly preferred as his administrator to the guardians of three out of five of the children of another brother; though one of the latter guardians was the widow of the brother whose children she was one of the guardians of, and the other of the two guardians was a distant relative of the deceased, and they were also jointly creditors of the deceased.
    On appeal from the probate court of Yazoo county; Hon. James R. Burrus, judge.
    Michael Langan and his wife on the one side, and Claiborne Bowman on the other, petitioned the probate court for the administration de bonis non of the estate of Nicholas O’Reilly, deceased.
    By agreement between the parties, the facts stated in the respective petitions were admitted ás true.
    
      That of Langan and wife states, that the wife of Langan was the widow of Philip O’Reilly, a brother of Nicholas O’Reilly, who was also deceased; that Nicholas O’Reilly left no children, never having been married. Nicholas O’Reilly, in his lifetime, had been associated in a commercial partnership, and also in a plantation and negroes in the county of Yazoo with his brothers, Philip, deceased, and Edmund O’Reilly, deceased, both of whom he survived, and that they did business under the firm, name and style of N. & C. O’Reilly & Co. That Nicholas O’Reilly, at the time of his death, was owner and possessed of a considerable real and personal estate.
    That Philip left five children, all of whom are now living; the lawful heirs of N. O’Reilly are the children of Philip and of Edmund ; that the wife of Langan is an heir of the estate of Philip; that Nicholas, in his lifetime, was, and his estate now is, largely indebted to the estate of Philip in the sum of about §8420; that petitioners are therefore creditors of said N. O’Reilly’s estate, and that Michael Langan is a first cousin of Nicholas.
    The estate o.f Nicholas is indebted to Langan and wife, for the hire of three negroes two months, and is also farther indebted to Langan in the sum of §1530-78, due on a probated account, and that petitioners are guardians of three of the children of Philip O’Reilly.
    The petition of Bowman sets forth, that he is the guardian of the three children of Edmund O’Reilly, deceased, who are heirs at law of Nicholas; that as guardian of said minors he is entitled to the administration, and prays for it jointly with one Benjamin Grimes, and if that cannot be done, for himself alone.
    The probate court granted the administration de bonis non, &c. to Bowman, from which judgment Langan and wife appealed.
    
      Miles and Battaile, for appellants,
    Cited Hutch, Code, 655-657; 1 How. 568; 1 Lom. Ex. 136; 4 Leigh, 152; 3 How. 40; 2 Hayw. 60; 2D. S. Dig. 361; 1 Supp. U. S> Dig. 792; 1 Lom. Ex, 146,147; Com. Dig. tit. Adm’r, B, 6; Toller, Exec. 91; 1 How. 322.
    
      
      R. S. Holt, for appellee,
    Cited How. & Hutch. 395 ; 1 Lorn, on Ex. 136 -138 ; lb. 139, 142, 143, 144, 145, 158, 159 ; 2 Hall, Dig. 141, 142, 145; 5 How. 288; 1 lb. 568.
   Mr. Justice Clayton

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a contest for the rights of administration upon the estate of Nicholas O’Reilly, deceased. Bowman claimed the right to administer, by virtue of his guardianship of the children of one of the brothers of the decedent, and who are distributees of the estate.

Langan and wife claim, bécause they are guardians of three of five children left by another brother, also distributees of the estate, and because the wife was formerly the widow of first last mentioned brother, and because they are also creditors of the estate. The court below granted the administration to Bowman.

It seems to'be settled that the party entitled to the estate is entitled to the administration, and that where there are several distributees, the one entitled to the largest share in the estate is entitled to the administration. It is also settled that the same rule prevails, where the parties claim the right to administer in a representative character. Thus, where four grandchildren were entitled to an estate, one of whom was of age, and the other three were represented by their mother as their guardian, it was determined that she was entitled to the preference, because of the preponderance of the interest which she represented. 1 Williams’ Ex. 281; 1 Lomax, Ex. 142.

Bowman was the guardian of all the children of one of the brothers, Langan and wife were guardians of only three out of the five children of the other brother; Bowman therefore represented the larger interest.

The fact that Langan was a relation of the decedent makes no difference, because the relationship was so remote that it gave him no interest in the distribution. A party is entitled to preference in the grant of administration, only in proportion to his interest in the distribution. Neither does the circumstance that they are creditors, add any strength to their claim. According to some authorities, it is rather adverse to, than in favor of their pretension. 1 Lomax, Ex. 139. Creditors are by the statute postponed, in the grant of administration, ,to the next of kin.

We see no reason to disturb the action of the court below, and direct its order to be affirmed.  