
    Murray v. Blatchford, 1 Wend. 583.
    Not reported in Chancery.
    
      Executors and Administrators; Release; Compromise by Two without Assent of Third Executor.
    
    Bill by next of kin against the administrators of their intestate,' and one of the debtors to his estate, who had compromised his debt with two of the administrators, without the concurrence of the third, to have the release set aside and for a payment of the residue of the debt.
    The Chancellor made a decree to that effect, holding the release not binding on account of the dissent of the third administrator, one third also of those entitled to distribution, having opposed the release.
    The Court of Errors held, that the release by the two without the concurrence of the third administrator, was good, and that his dissent was no objection to its validity; that executors and administrators stand on the same groumj ; their liabilities and responsibilities, and their rights and interests are the same.
   The Court of Errors assented to the principle of the Chancellor’s decree, as to the right of persons interested in an estate to pursue property into ■ the hands of any person who colludes or conspires with the executors to produce a devastavit. Collusion is any intermeddling with the executor or the assets of the testator, by which the executor is guilty of a violation of his duty.

But it was held by the Court of Errors, that though the release was executed by the two administrators, contrary to the known wishes of one third of those entitled to distribution, it was not liable to be set aside where there was no fraud or collusion shown between the debtor and the administrators ; and as the answer denied all fraud and collu sion, and no evidence had been taken to establish either, that fraud or collusion could not be alleged to avoid the release.

Judgment reversed accordingly.  