119-NLR-NLR-V-02-NAIDEHAMY-v.-SILVA.pdf
( 289 )
NAIDEHAMY v. SILVA.
D. C., TangaUa, 297.
Official administrator—Appeal—Costa.
An official administrator should not appeal against a judgmentwithout the leave of the Court; if he does so he is personally liablefor costs.
r j 1HE facts appear in the judgments.
Wendt and Bawa, for appellant.
Morgan, for respondent.
Cur. adv. vutt.
10th February, 1897. Bonser, C.J.—
I am of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. Thedecree is right in substance, though I do not agree with the DistrictJudge that the gift is a donatio mortis causa. It was rather amoney bond payable by the maker’s legal personal representative,
The appellant must pay the costs of the appeal personally, andnot out of his intestate’s estate. An official administrator shouldnot prosecute an appeal without the leave of the Court. If hedoes so it must be at his own risk.
Withers, J.—'
I take the same view of the instrument on which the samemaker’s legal representative has been sued by the plaintiff as theassignee of the surviving obligee. As a money bond the docu*ment in my opinion did not require registration. I have theChief Justice’s permission to modify his proposed order as tocosts, though in principle I am entirely at one with him, and itmust be clearly understood in the future that an official adminis-trator who appeals from a judgment of a lower court withoutjudicial, sanction appeals at his own risk. An official adminis-trator must not waste an estate in litigation, but to protect himselfhe must either get the sanction of the Court or an indemnity, fromthose in whose interest he is administering the estate. In this-instance the defendant must pay the cost out of his own pocket,with leave to apply to the District Judge for an order allowinghim to reimburse himself put of the estate, which the Judge isonly to make if he is satisfied with the conduct of the officialadministrator in the matter.
1896.
'December 2.
1897.
February 10.
♦
’ VOL. II.
12(55)29'