case blower versus MORRETS Monday April at powis house SC dick see Barry v  Stawell Flan king for previous proceed see SC Ves sen where cost be decree to  all party out of a real estate though one of they who be entitle to receive  cost die before they be tax they do not become void cum mask but his heir at  law be entitle vide white v Hayward Ves Kemp v mackerel atk Ves SC hall v  smith bro Charles Rep if any thing have remain to have be do and undecreed the  representative of the decease party by revive will have be entitle to the cost  even if they have not be direct to stand a charge on the real estate by a  decree in this cause cost have be decree to all party out of a real estate one  of the party who be entitle to receive cost die before they have be tax it be  insist that as to this person the cost become void cum mask Lord chancellor  say be think this a severe rule and that a distinction may be take in the  present case as the cost be by the decree make a lie on real estate and upon  ask the bar if they know any authority to warrant such a distinction Mr  Hoskins say your lordship take the distinction in Lord Oxford cause and Mr  Bignell mention that the master of the roll have take the same distinction in  a case of Howard versus hall at the last seal here every thing be settle by  the decree and therefore nothing leave which can make a bill of revivor  necessary if there have be any thing remain to be do the representative of the  decease party by revive the cause will have be entitle to the cost decree even  if they have not be direct to stand a charge on the real estate Lord  chancellor order the cause to stand over till Wednesday to look into and upon  its come on that day his lordship say the general rule that there can be no  revivor by executor or administrator for cost when cost have not be tax be  upon that be principle that cost be look upon atkins as a wrong and there  atkins er p before noritur cum mask all these case have be determine where  cost be decree personal otherwise where they have be decree out of real estate  the case of Johnson versus leak Ves S c and which be hear before I on the that  of July be as follow there be a decree for a sum against a executor with cost  out of asset the executor pay the sum but not the cost and then the plaintiff  die and a bill be bring to revive for cost if be object that a bill to revive  for cost only be improper and that the payment out of asset be only incident  to the cost in respect to the sum decree I order the cause to stand revive for  the rule not to revive for cost only I think d hard rule the cost be frequent  more than the debt and this case be not within the rule for it be not a decree  in mask but executory and to be pay out of asset and if the executor have die  the plaintiff may have revive against the representative of the testator and  may have pursue the asset into whatever hand they come I think this be a very  reasonable distinction this court have follow the rule of law where there be a  judgement cost be ascertain and tax but if no judgement the cost be lose a  executor or administrator can not have a writ by journey account nor a heir at  law for that writ lie only between the same party so that at law all cost be  personal but here where there be a fund to answer cost and which be make  liable the representative by revive will be entitle let the master tax the  cost of Benjamin Morrets and his wife the heir at law of the person who be  entitle to the cost accord to the decree and let what shall be find due on the  taxation be pay out of the money which arise out of the sale of the real  estate and now lie in the bank Reg lib a fol