( 279 )
SAMINATHAN CHETTY v. SILYJL."
D. C., GaUe, 6,400.
Prescription—Action against executor de son tort—Appointment of administrator—Administrator made party defendant—A dmimstrator 's plea of pre-scription.
Where an action was brought in time against an executor de son tortof a deceased debtor and, upon the appointment of an administrator,-obtained leave to add him as a party defendant, and where theadministrator pleaded prescription,—
Held, that as he was made a party ^iQ the same representative characteras that filled by the original defendants, his plea of prescription was notgood.
HIS was an action for the value of rice supplied to a deceasedperson on 16th January, 1901, 20th February, 1901, and 5th
March, 1901. It was instituted on 21st October, 1901, against twopersons as executors de son tort, who had intermeddled in theestate. An administrator having been appointed on 21st January,1902, the plaintiff on 24th May, 1902, got leave of Court to add himas a party defendant, and on 16th July, 1902, filed an amendedplaint, in which the administrator was added as third defendant.
The administrator pleaded that the claim was prescribed asagainst him. The District Judge gave plaintiff judgment asagainst the administrator.
He appealed. The case was argued on 14th June, 1904.
II. A. Joyawardene, for appellant.
Van Langenberg, for respondent.
28th June, .1904. Wendt, J.—
The question on this appeal is, whether the action against theappellant is barred by limitation. He was added as a defendantseven months after the filing of the plaint, and it is admittedthat, if the action is to be deemed to have been commenced asagainst him at the date when he was brought in, it is barred.Originally the first and second defendants were sued as executorsde son tort of one Jayasooriva, who had been plaintiff's debtor.Pending the action, which was brought in time as against thosedefendants, letters of administration to Jayasooriya’s intestateestate were issued to appellant, and he was thereupon added. Itis therefore clear that appellant was'made a party in the tsamerepresentative character as that filled by the original defendants,and that as against- him this action must T)e regarded as havingbeen commenced at the date when it was begun tas against the firstand second defendants.
The appeal will therefore be dismissed with costs.
Sampayo, A.J.—I agree.
SAMINATHAN CHETTY v. SILVA