Case ID: njl_15/html/0344-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam:.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOHN COTTRELL Ads. JOHN DEN EX DEM. THOMAS THOMPSON AND OTHERS.
    This court will not make a rule on executors, to enforce the payment of costs in an action of ejectment brought by their testator. The court will leave the liability of the executors for such costs, to be settled in an action to be brought against them by the defendants in ejectment. The consent of parties can give the court no authority to render an extra judicial judgment in the premises.
    An action of ejectment had been brought against John Cottrell for lands in the county of Monmouth, and a judgment rendered in favour of the defendant, and for costs of suit. Notice had been served upon one of the executors of the lessor of the plaintiff, that an application would be made to the Justices of the Supreme Court for a rule to enforce the payment of the taxed costs of suit, and it was agreed between the parties, that the following should be a state of the case between them. That Thomas Thompson in his lifetime, (since deceased,) paid part of the costs on account of the same. That Daniel Conk-ling is believed tobe deceased, having left the State of New Jersey some ten years since, and has not been heard from since. That Jane Thompson, now the widow of the said Thomas Tompson, deceased, is very aged and infirm, and is noncomposmentis. That the residence of Mary Conkling is unknown, being' ancient and infirm; and that the said Jane Thompson and Mary Conkling have real estate sufficient to pay the balance of the costs in the above suits in the county of Monmouth, and that the said Thomas Thompson in his lifetime, was the active person in bringing and prosecuting said suits. If in the opinion of the Supreme Court, the executors of said Thomas Thompson are bound to pay the costs, then it is agreed, a rule shall be entered to that effect, (it being admitted they have sufficient assets to pay,) or such other course in the premises, as the Supreme Court may direct.
    Dated May 10th, 1836.
   Per Curiam:.

We can make no rule on the executors. The consent of parties can give us no authority to render an extra judicial judgment in the premises. If the executors of the lessor of the plaintiff, are liable for the costs, it must be on the undertaking of their testator, to pay costs according to the terms of the consent rule entered into by him ; and whether they are so liable or not, we must leave to be settled in an action against them, by the defendant in ejectment.