
    Brubaker’s Appeal.
    1. Joint letters of administration should never be granted against the protest of one of tiie parlies thereto.
    2. The creation of two separate co-ordinate administrations upon the tame estate is unknown in our practice, and is a manifest irregularity.
    3. Where the class primarily entitled to administer upon a decedent’s estate consists of several persons, the register may grant letters to all jointly if they wish it, or may in his discretion select one of them and commit the administration to him. But having once exercised that discretion he cannot revoke the letters granted and issue new letters to another, except for sufficient cause.
    May 4th 1881. Before Sharswood, O. J., Mercub, Gordon, Paxson, Trunket, Sterrett and Green, JJ.
    Appeal from the Orphans’ Court of Lcmoaster coimty. Of May Term 1881, No. 75.
    Appeal by Elizabeth Brubaker, administratrix of the estate of Jacob Shaeffer, deceased, from a decree of the said Court, directing the Register of Wills to issue separate letters of administration upon said estate to the appellant’s sister, Mrs. Lavina Wolf.
    Jacob Shaeffer. died intestate, a widower, leaving to survive him two married daughters, Mrs. Brubaker and Mrs. Wolf. Shortly after his death the register granted letters of administration to Mrs. Brubaker, the elder daughter. Mrs. Wolf thereupon presented her petition to the register, setting forth that the letters had been granted to Mrs. Brubaker without the petitioner’s knowledge or consent, and contrary to the assurance of the deputy register, that, although no caveat was filed, letters should not be granted to either until both had been heard; that Mrs. Brubaker being confined to her resi-. deuce by illness, the petitioner agreed with her that nothing should be done until her recovery, but that at Mrs. Brubaker’s request the deputy register visited her at her house, and there privately administered tlie affirmation and issued the letters. The petitioner averred that she had an equal right to administration with her sister, and prayed to be joined with the latter in the administration.
    The register refused to grant the prayer of the petition, and Mrs. Wolf appealed from his decision to the Orphans’ Court. Depositions were taken under a rule to show cause, which in part sustained the allegations of the petition, and after argument the Court (Patterson, J.) filed an opinion in which he said: “ The Act of March 15th 1832, directs that, after the widow, letters shall be granted to such of the intestate’s kindred as may be entitled to the residue of his personal estate, preferring' always such as are in the nearest degree of consanguinity. These two, the only children, and sisters, are equally entitled to share the decedent’s personal and real estate, and are equally near in degree of consanguinity to the intestate. Would not, then, the granting of letters of administration to this appellant (Mrs. Wolf) only put both sisters on a perfect equality % . . . Put the Court does not feel at liberty to enjoin a joint administration between these sisters; indeed, the prevailing rule is, not to force a joint administration on unwilling parties.
    “ The Court will therefore sustain this appeal, and there having been no sufficient or valid objections to Mrs. La vina W olf, letters of administration are ordered to issue to her, on her father’s estate, upon her entering good and sufficient security with the register for the faithful performance of her duties as administratrix, providing her husband’s assent is obtaiiíed; which assent will be evidenced by his joining in the administration bond.”
    Mrs. Prnbaker thereupon took this appeal, assigning for error the above opinion and decree.
    
      H. O. Brubaher and A. J. Eberle, for the appellant.—
    The register having issued letters to one sister, in the exercise of a discretion reposed in him by the Act of Assembly, the Court has no jurisdiction to review his action. The register himself could not revoke his action except for cause: Sliomo’s Appeal, 7 P. F. Smith 356; Hood on Executors 64, 467; Toller on Executors 89; 1 Williams on Executors 371. The Court acknowledged that a joint administration by the sisters would be improper under the circumstances, and to escape that fell into the more serious error of awarding a separate administration to each, for which there is no warrant in law.
    
      8. P. Ely, for the appellee.
    The sisters were entitled to equal rights in their father’s estate, including the right of administration, and to share the commissions incident thereto, which in this case will amount to $3,000. The letters to Mrs. Brubaker were obtained by a trick, in violation of an understanding that nothing should be done until both should be heard by the register. Courts will not encourage indecent haste in securing administration by such means. As the two daughters are the only persons interested in the estate, no injustice can arise from the fact that letters were issued to each, instead of to them jointly. Such is the practice in England, and our statute does not forbid it.
    May 23d 1831.
   Mr. Justice Sterrett

delivered the opinion of the Court,

Jacob Sbaeffer survived his wife and died intestate August 14th 1SS0, leaving as his only heirs-at-law two married daughters, Elizabeth Brubaker and La vina Wolf. Ten days after his decease letters of administration on his estate were duly granted by the register to Mrs. Brubaker, the elder daughter; and on September 2d the petition of the younger daughter and her husband was presented, praying that she be joined with her sister in the administration already granted. This application was refused by the register, and thereupon the petitioners appealed from his decision to the Orphans’ Court, and a rule, with notice to Mi’s. Brubaker, was granted, to show causo why Mrs. Wolf should not be joined in the administration. Under this rule depositions were taken by both parties, and tlie Court, after hearing, on January 29th 1881, made a decree sustaining tbe appeal, and ordering letters of administration to be issued to Mrs. Wolf “ on her father’s estate, upon her entering good and sufficient security with the register for the faithful performance of her duties as administratrix, providing her husband’s assent is obtained ; which assent will be evidenced by his joining in the administration bond.”

It is contended that the Court erred in thus ordering letters of administration to be issued to Mrs. Wolf, and in forcing a joint administration, against the consent of Mrs. Brubaker, to whom letters had been previously granted.

The learned judge in Iris opinion says : “ The present administratrix and the appellant” are both equally competent to perform the duties of administrator; both stand in equal degree of relationship to the decedent; both have equal share or interest in his estate; and looking ou this appeal, we look at the whole case on its merits and the rights of the respective parties, and we are of the opinion that letters of administration should be granted to this appellant, that both may be on an equality. But tlie C'ourt does not feel at liberty to enjoin a joint administration between these sisters ; indeed, the prevailing rule is not to enforce a joint administration on unwilling parties.”

It is very evident from this that the Court recognized the impropriety of attempting to create a joint administration against the protest of one of the parties thereto. The nature of the oflice forbids it. Joint administration necessarily involves joint liability, and no one can be compelled to assume such responsibility. Due regard to individual rights, as well as the interest of the estate, require that administration should not be committed to two or more persons unless they mutually agree to accept the trust. Nor does the decree in this ease require joint administration. If it did, it would be manifestly wrong; but its effect is to create two separate, co-ordinate administrations on the'same estate, and for that reason it is equally objectionable. Such a thing is unknown to our jurisprudence, even in theory, and in practice it would be entirely impracticable. Under the English statute, the Crdinary may commit the administration to the widow and next of kin jointly, or he may grant to one exclusive administration of a particular portion of the goods of the intestate, and to the other a separate administration of the residue; but no warrant for any such practice as that contemplated by the decree of the Orphans’ Court can be found in our statute.

When the class primarily entitled to administration consists of several persons, it is the duty of the register to grant letters to such one or more of them as he shall judge will best administer the estate. lie may thus grant letters to them all jointly, if they so desire; or, in liis discretion, he may select one of them and commit the administration to him alone, to the exclusion of the others; and, when properly exercised, his discretion is not the subject of review either in the Orphans’ Court or here. lie is not bound to select the oldest in preference to the youngest of the class entitled to administration. Primogeniture gives no right of preference, so as to weigh against the wish of the majority of interests; yet, if things are precisely equal — if the scale is exactly poised — being the elder brother would indine the balance: Hood on Executors G4; 1 Williams on Executors 427. And the same principle applies to the elder of two sisters. In Shomo’s Appeal, 7 P. E. Smith 35G, it is said that among children the right does not depend on seniority ; it is entirely in the discretion of the register; but when he has exercised his discretion by selecting one of the sons, it is no longer in his power to revoke the letters elms granted and issue them to another, except for sufficient cause. Wlieu administration lias been committed to any of the next of kin, others, even in the same degree of kindred, have, during the life of the administrator, no title' to a similar grantHood on Executors, 64. In the case before us the two daughters of the intestate were equally competent to administer, and the register might have granted letters to both jointly if they liad so desired; but he was not bound to do so. In the exercise of his discretion he selected Mrs. Brubaker, who requested that letters should be issued to herself alone. Having done so, it was not in his power to revoke the letters thus granted, or to join the younger sister in the administration against the will of the other. Nor is there 'anything in the circumstances, as disclosed by the testimony, to justify the Court in reversing the decision of the register, and creating a dual adminfetration, which, if it could be permitted to stand, would undoubtedly be prejudicial to the interests of the estate.

The decree of the Ordhans’ Court is reversed and set aside, and the decision of the register is affirmed; aud it is ordered that the costs, including the costs of this appeal, be paid by the appellee.  