
    Davis, Adm’r, v. Thomas.
    The Supreme Court will not revise any error or irregularity committed after judgment. If there be error in the taxation of costs or in the execution, the party complaining must apply to the court below to have it corrected; and after judgment of tlio court on his application he may, if he be dissatisfied, bring up that judgment for revision.
    A judgment by consent that the suit be dismissed, and that the plaintiff pay all costs necessarily incurred, and that the defendant pay all eosfs by him unnecessarily incurred, is a final j udgmont and is sufficiently certain, either party having tile right to resort to the court for redress as in other cases, if he be dissatisfied with the taxation of the costs by the clerk.
    It is error under the stahlio to order execution to issue against an administrator for costs.
    They should bo certified to the Probate Court for allowance, where suit was brought against an administrator to establish a claim against the estate, and judgment went by consent against the administrator for costs unnecessarily incurred by him, upon which execution was ordered, the judgment was construed to be against the administrator in his representative capacity.
    Error from Sail Augustine. In this ease the defendant, in error sued the plaintiff in error as the administrator of one Smith. The suit was a long time on the docket under various orders, and it was at last dismissed hy the plaintiff, as appeared from the following entry: “•Now come the parties hy their attorney, and it is agreed that this cause he dismissed at the costs of the plaintiff for all lawful costs incurred herein; and that all costs not strictly necessary be at the cost of the defendant.” The judgment of the court was in the words following: “Ordered, therefore, that the same be dismissed from the docket, and that the plaintiff, Iredel D. Thomas, pay all lawful costs on this behalf to he taxed; and,that all the costs unnecessarily incurred by the defendant he taxed to said defendant, Samuel S. Davis, administrator, <fcc.; and further ordered that execution issue.” Execution issued on this judgment against Samuel S. Davis, the administrator, for the costs of his own witnesses, and running against him personally, and not as administrator.
    
      Ardrey and Sexton, for plaintiff in error.
    I. The court erred in rendering judgment against Davis in his own right, and ordering execution to issue thereon. (Acts of 1840, p. 116, see. 20; 2 Tex! It., 478.)
    II. The judgment is void for uncertainty. (Steph. PL, 13S; 3 Bl. Comm., 395; Tidd’sPrac.,843,842; Harris’s Entries, 344; Tankersly v. Selbnrn, 1 Ala. R., 18-5; Tombeebee Bank v. Strang’s Ex’rs, 1 Stew. & Port. R., 187.)
    Wheeler, J., did not sit in this case.
   Lipscomb, J.

We have repeatedly ruled that we cannot, when a judgment is brought before us for revision, look to any error or irregularity occurring subsequent to the judgment so brought up; and if there is error in the taxation of costs or in the execution, that such irregularities can only be brought before us after proceedings had in the court below for their correction. If the cleric has committed an error if the taxation of the costs, there must be proceedings and a judgment on such proceedings in the court below before we can examine and decide on such supposed errors. Either party dissatisfied can have such judgment revised. In this ease the bill of costs and the execution sent up show that the.clerk has taxed the defendant in the court below with the costs for the attendance of his own witnesses; and although it would seem difficult to understand on what authority lie could, in taxing the costs under the agreement of the parties by which the suit was dismissed, determine that such attendance was costs unnecessarily incurred by the defendant, yet, until it has been adjudicated in the court below, we have no control over what he has done.

But there is an error complained of that we can revise. In the judgment of the court, although by a fair construction it is against-the defendant as administrator for costs unnecessarily incurred, yet it orders an execution to issue. This we conceive to be error. It should have decided that if there were any such costs to be taxed they should be certified to the Probate Court, to be allowed and settled in the due course of the administration. For this error so much of the judgment as directs execution to issue must be reversed, vacated, .and annulled; and the order be so made as to direct execution for all legal costs against the plaintiff below; and as for the balance, if un necessarily ni-■curred by the defendant below, that the same be taxed and be certified to the Probate Court for allowance, and to be settled in the due course of the administration. We do not intend being understood to say that the motion for a retaxation of the costs must be made before they are so certified; but if made •in a reasonable time after, it can be revised and corrected by the court below.

. Ordered accordingly.  