Arrington v. . Coleman
Supreme Court of North Carolina
from Halifax. On m°6°n dismiss the Supersedeas obtained in this cáse by Arrington, Administrator of Philips, it was ordered that the case be sent to the Court of Conference upon the question, whether an Administrator is liable for costs incur-by his intestate i:i carrying on a suit at law, before he (the administrator) became a party to the suit; and whet‘lcr he is liable for costs incurred in the time of his admi-Astral ion j and out of what estate or effects the said costs…
Read the full summary
from Halifax. On m°6°n dismiss the Supersedeas obtained in this cáse by Arrington, Administrator of Philips, it was ordered that the case be sent to the Court of Conference upon the question, whether an Administrator is liable for costs incur-by his intestate i:i carrying on a suit at law, before he (the administrator) became a party to the suit; and whet‘lcr he is liable for costs incurred in the time of his admi-Astral ion j and out of what estate or effects the said costs are to be paid in case there be no assets of the intestate ?
1Opinion of the Court
Locke —Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court. — The ru*e rpSar^ costs in England seems to be accurately |aj(] down in 2nd Bac. Ab. 446, and in the cases there rc-ferred to. Executors and Administrators when plaintiffs „ . , pay no costs, tor they sue in Muter JJroit, and are but trus-for the creditors ; they are not presumed to be sufE-c*eillty cognizant of the personal contracts óf those whom they represent, and are therefore not within the statutes of acts of Parliament relative to costs. Wherever they sue in Jluter Droit, they pay no costs ; but if tiiey bring .suit in their own right,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Christian v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Christian v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Westfelt v. . AdamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
- Wool v. . SaundersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
- Stanmire v. . PowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1852