12 Ala. 36 | Ala. | 1847
In Chandler, et al. v. Shehan, 7 Ala. Rep. 251, it was said that the test to determine whether a
In the case at bar the plaintiff, if he had been in possession of the property after the grant of administration, might perhaps have sued in his own name, yet it was not indispensable that he should have thus declared. Whatever the plaintiff would have recovered had his action been successfully prosecuted, would have been assets of the estate he represented ; and being unsuccessful according to the cases cited, that estate is chargeable with the costs. The judgment is therefore reversed, and the proper judgment here rendered for the costs of the circuit court de bonis intestatis.