The single question presented is, whether the county court of Henry county could, under the circumstances of this case, permit the said administrators to surrender up the administration and appoint another.

It is clear that the county court would not have the power of doing so arbitrarily, and without the consent of the administrator, or without a good and sufficient cause. It is not perceived by the court, why the county court should not have this power when the administrator'abuses his trust, or where he assents to it, and when it may be evidently for the benefit of the estate that the administration should be given up.

The authorities cited only show, that the court having once granted administration, has not the power to revoke it at pleasure; but where a case is presented, in which the court believe it to be advantageous to the estate to change the administrator, who is willing and consents to it, there is no rule or principle of law to prevent it. Such a change of the administration will not discharge or release the former administrator, or his securities, from any liabilities incurred before he surrendered the administration. The court believe that the county court of Henry had the power, and that it was properly exercised in this case; the more especially as the complainant must be considered as holding in a character which he cannot dispute.

The decree of the Chancellor must be reversed, and the defendants decreed to deliver up the negroes mentioned in the pleadings.

(dissentiente.) I view this cause set-tied by the decision of Marshall as administrator of John Childress against Perry Cohea, decided by this court at Columbia, in 1823. Samuel B. Marshall and Elizabeth Childress, in 1819, were appointed administrator and ad-ministratrix of the goods, &c. of J. Childress, deceased. Suit in their names was brought in the Maury county court, in their representative character, against Perry Cohea, on a contract for the sale of lands made between John Childress and Cohea. In 1822, pending the suit, Elizabeth Childress died, and the suit stood in the name of Samuel B. Marshall. In the fall of 1822, said Marshall resigned his administration to the Davidson county court, where granted, and John Catron was appointed in his stead., This was by consent. It was then moved, on the new letters granted to Catron, to prosecute the suit against Cohea in his (Catron’s) name, and a cross motion was made to abate it. The county court abated the suit, and entered judgment that the defendant go hence. An appeal was prosecuted to the circuit court, where the judgment was affirmed; and an appeal in error was prosecuted to the supreme court, which decided that the administration granted to Catron was merely void, because Marshall had no power to resign-at his own election, and, consequently, the county court had no jurisdiction to appoint a second administrator, there being one vested with the trust and title to the property. Brown, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

Decree reversed.