
    *Dunton v. Robins.
    Thursday, Sept. 19th, 1811.
    Executors — Appeals by — Security.—Rule as to bond and security for prosecuting' appeals, where the decree is partly against an executor, as such, and partly against him in his own right.
    See Sadler’s Executors, &c. v. Green, 1 H, & M. 36.
    
      
       Executors — Appeal—When Security Required, — The question as to when an executor, appealing from a judgment or decree, is required to give security for the prosecution of the appeal, has been discussed at some length in notes in this series of reports and the rule deduced that, where the object of the appeal is to assert the rights or protect the interests of the estate which the executor represents, no bond or security is required; but. on the other hand, where the judgment or decree appealed from is against, the executor personally, and does not affect in any way the estate of the decedent, he should be required to give bond and security as any other individual, before he can appeal. No appeal bond is required in the first case above mentioned because the official bond, already executed, will bind the personal representative and his sureties to pay the amount of the judgment or decree in case of affirmance, provided there be assets of the estate; and that is ail the appellee has a right to demand. Sue foot-note to McCauley v. Griffin, 4 Gratt. 9; foot-note to Wilson v. Wilson, l Hen. & M. 15; foot-note to Sadler v. Green. 1 Hen. & M. 26: monographic note on “Executors and Administrators’’ appended to Rosser v. Depriest, 5 Gratt. 6.
      On this subject, the principal case is cited in Shearman v. Christian, 1 Rand. 394; State v. Johnson. 28 W. Va. 65, 79.
    
   The president reported the opinion of the court that, the decree being, in part, against the appellant as an executor, and, in part, against him in his own right, he must give bond and security for prosecuting the appeal, in a penalty equal to double the amount of such part of the decree as was against him in his own right.  