Same  effect  as  to  old  Code  are  Bullock  v.  Bogardus,  1  Den.
276  ;  Bradeley  v.  Burwell,  3  id.  262 ;  Russell  v.  Lane,  1  Barb.
519 ;  Fort  v.  Gooding,  9  id.  371 ;  Buckhout  v.  Runt,  16  How.
407 ;  Snyder  v.  Young,  4  id.  217 ;  Van  Vleeok  v.  Burroughs,
6  Barb.  341  ;  Belden  v.  KnowUon,  3  Sandf.  758 ;  Potter  v.
Etz,  5  Wend.  74 ;  Nicholson  v.  Showerma}i,  6  id.  554 ;  Car-
hart  y.  Blaisdell,  18  id.  531;  Doan  v.  Bine's  Ex'r,  22  id.  639;
Knapp  V.  Curtiss,  6  Hill,  386  ;  Gansevoort  v.  Nelson,  id.  389 ;
Murray  v.  Smith,  9  Bosw.  689  ;  Boyd  v.  Wilkin,  23  How.  137 ;
Stephenson  v.  Clark,  12  id.  282 ;  same  rule,  Kahnwilder  v.  Smithy
6  State  Rep.  241 ;  Chesehro  v.  Micks,  66  How.  194.  The  granting
of  an  extra  allowance  against  executors  depends  upon  the  same  in-
quiry as  the  question  of  tlie  recovery  of  costs  against  them.  Niblo
V.  Binsse,  47  Barb.  435.  If  an  executor  unreasonably  refuse  to
allow  a  claim  directed  to  be  paid  by  his  testatrix,  and  the  whole  claim
is  finally  allowed,  the  plaintiff  is  entitled  to  costs  and  an  allowance.
Barling  y.  Halsey,  2  Abb.  IST.  C.  105.  The  refusal,  by  an  execu-
tor, to  pay  a  claim  largely  in  excess  of  a  bill  previously  rendered,  is
not  unreasonable  so  as  to  charge  the  estate  with  costs  of  an  unreason-
able defense.     Harrison  v.  Ayers,  18  Hun,  366.
