Short answer. Either is allowed. When two or more persons are appointed executors or administrators, the court has discretion to take a separate bond from each of them, or instead accept one joint bond that covers all of them together. The choice belongs to the court, not the co-administrators, and it affects exposure if a claim is later made.
What the law says
When two or more persons are appointed executors or administrators the court may take a separate bond from each, or a joint bond from all.
Rule 81, Section 3 — Bonds of joint executors and administrators. Read the full provision →
The court's choice, not the co-administrators'
Where two or more people are appointed executors or administrators over the same estate, the rule does not fix a single bonding arrangement for every case. It leaves the choice to the court, which may take a separate bond from each of the co-administrators or instead accept a single joint bond covering all of them together, based on whatever it thinks best suits the estate.
A practical difference in exposure
The two arrangements carry different practical consequences: separate bonds tie each administrator's own surety to that individual's own conduct, while a joint bond ties all the co-administrators' sureties together under one single instrument, a distinction that can matter a great deal if a claim is ever made against the bond for a breach of trust by only one of them.
Why the court might prefer one arrangement over the other
A court weighing which arrangement to require typically considers the relationship between the co-administrators, the size and complexity of the estate, and whether one administrator is expected to handle most of the actual work while the other plays a more limited role. Separate bonds can make more sense where each co-administrator will independently control distinct assets or take on separate responsibilities, while a joint bond may suit co-administrators who are expected to act jointly on essentially everything throughout the settlement of the estate.
What happens if a breach occurs under either arrangement
Under separate bonds, a loss caused by one administrator's misconduct is ordinarily pursued against that administrator's own bond and surety, without necessarily implicating the other administrator's bond. Under a joint bond, by contrast, the sureties who signed it can potentially be reached for a loss traceable to any of the co-administrators covered by that single instrument, which is why the choice between the two arrangements carries real financial stakes for the sureties as well as for the administrators themselves.
Who this discretion binds
Section 3 binds only the court's own choice between the two arrangements — it does not give the co-administrators themselves any right to insist on separate bonds over a joint one, or vice versa, though the court may certainly weigh their preferences alongside the estate's needs. Nothing in the text requires the court to explain its reasons for choosing one arrangement over the other, and neither arrangement excuses a co-administrator from the underlying duty to account faithfully for the estate property under their control, whichever bonding structure the court settles on.
Related provisions
- Rule 81, Section 3 — Bonds of joint executors and administrators
- Rule 81, Section 4 — Bond of special administrator