Administrator of Glover v Heir and Terretenants of Nagle

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 05 November 1840
• Date: 05 November 1840
• Court: Court of Common Pleas (Ireland)

COMMON PLEAS.

Administrator of GLOVER

and

Heir and Terretenants of NAGLE.

Haywarth v. DavidENR Cro. Jac. 229.

Bellew v. AylmerENR 2 Str. 188.

Rex v. The Inhabitants of BarhamENR 8 B. & C. 104.

Notley v. BucksENR 8 B. & C. 164.

Southgate v. CrowleyENR 1 Bing. N. C. 521.

SCIRE FACIAS — EXECUTOR — COSTS — 9 W. 3, c. 35.

MICHAELMAS TERM, FOURTH VICTORIA. 21 Thursday, November 5th. SCIRE FAC/AS-EXECUTOR-COSTS-9 W. 3, c. 35. Administrator of GLOVER v. Heir and Terretenants of NAOLE. In this case, the plaintiff had brought a scire facias against the defend- When there had been a ants, who had obtained a verdict on the plea of non seisin; and judg- verdict against went was accordingly marked against the plaintiff, with costs. an executor plaintiff on a sci. fa., the Mr. Martley and Mr. Barry now moved the Court, that so much of the Court struck outthe part of judgment as awarded costs to the defendants might be set aside. This judg- the judgment meat was marked with costs against the plai ntiff, who sued as ad mi nistrator, which awarded costs against on the supposition, that in this country, a plaintiff executor or adminis- him, on the , that it trator was not exempted, by the provisions of the 9 W. 3, c. 10, from the ground had always payment of costs, when a verdict was had against him on a seire facias ; been the un- derstanding of although, if he had happened to have been a defendant, it is admitted, that the 9 W. 3, a. he would not be liable to the payment of them, in the same event. This 10, as evinced by the practice has arisen from the peculiar wording of the 5th section of this statute, of the Court, which, in words, only exempts such a party from costs when he is a that executors, whether plain-defendant ; whereas, in the corresponding act in England (8 & 9 W. 3, tiffs or defend- ants in a scire e. 11), all persous, whether suing or sued as personal representatives, facias were ex- are exempted from costs. But we can shew, that where words equally empted from payment of large, or even larger than those in the Irish act, occur in similar acts in costs in cases of nonsuit or England, the decision of the Court has been, that executors, although verdict, and by not specially named, are exempted. For instance, on 4 Jac. 1, c. 3, the operation sta- and 8 Eliz. c. 2 of the new , in which there are no special exemptions of personal tote 3 Sc 4 V. ' representatives, it has been decided, that the case of an executor is not c. 105, the question was within the purview of those statutes, because he sues in a matter not not likely to within his own knowledge ; Haywarth v. David (a). The reason why occur again. plaintiffs were not mentioned in the 5th section of the Irish act was, WQheurreer.-un-...