mobilières du défunt,-que si ces dettes sont claires et liquides et du nombre de celles qui ne souffrent pas de contestation, comme celle de l'appelant, les ExécuteursTestamentaires peuvent payer de suite, mais que si les réclamations paraissent douteuses, alors ils doivent, comme dit Pothier, dénoncer la demande aux héritiers afin qu'ils l'admettent ou la contestent. (1).

Troisième proposition.-Les autorités déjà citées servent aussi à démontrer la proposition énoncée ici par l'appelant. Néanmoins, il croit devoir en ajouter quelques-unes: · Pandectes Françaises, vol. 9, page 380: "Il doit néanmoins (l'exécuteur,) obtenir le consentement de l'héritier et lui dénoncer les demandes qui peuvent être formées contre lui; car sans cela cet héritier pourrait prétendre qu'il avait de bons moyens pour se soustraire au paiement demandé, et refuser, ou du moins contester, l'allocation des sommes payées." (2)

ANDREWS, for respondent:-The principal question submitted to the consideration of the Court is whether the Court below erred in its adjudication upon the respondent's demurrer.

The question is in effect this, does an action at the instance of a creditor of the testator lie against a testamentary executor alone, that is, without the heirs being made parties to the suit, where, by the will, the executor has not been charged with the payment of the debt of the deceased?

(1) Ferrière, Dict. de Droit, vbo. Exécuteur, p. 571-Bacquet, Tr. des Droits de Justice, p. 778:-1er. Loisel, lib. 2, 2 t, 4 règie, 15:-1er. Arrêtés de Lamoignon, p. 313, §14:-Code Civil du B. C., lib. 3, p. 171:-9 Pandectes Françaises, No. 380:-4 Marcadé p. 109, No. 156, (bis):-2 Pigeau, pp. 391 et 392:-Ferrière, Institutes Coutumières, lib. 3, t. 6, art. 104:-Pothier, Don. et Test. ch. 5, sect. 3, art. 1er. §ler, p. 372-1813, No 53, Langlois vs. Dénéchaud :-1850, No. 1577, Parent vs. Langlois :-1856, Galarneau vs. Bitner:-1858, No. 900, Dérousselle vs. Lelièvre, ès qua:-1859, No. 1888, Russell vs. Moss.

(2) Dict. de Droit, Ferrière, vbo. Ex. Test. p. 571 :-Poth., Don. et Test., p. 572:4 Marcadé, p. 109, § 156-9 Duranton, No. 413.

The learned Judge of the Court below had by a previous decision given in a case brought before him, held that an action could not be maintained at the suit of a creditor of the testator against an executor alone, even where he had been by the will directly charged with the liquidation of the debts, but that the heirs or other personal representatives must, notwithstanding that clause in the testament, be made parties to the suit. (1)

The constant jurisprudence in Lower Canada has been that if a testator direct his debts to be paid by his executor, an action can be supported against the latter by a creditor of the deceased for the recovery of a dette mobiliaire, but it is believed such has not been the case where the executor had not been charged with the payment of the testator's debts.

Pothier indeed says the action would lie against the executor in his quality of executor whether he is or is not charged by the will with the payment of the debts, because it is to be presumed the testator intended the executor should pay them, and therefore the direction to do so is to be understood, sous entendu, in every will. On the other hand Marcadé (Vol. 4, page 109) contends that the executor, as executor, is never bound to pay the debts, but is so as having the saisine of the estate of the deceased, where the law gives it to him. Now it can only be for one or other of these reasons that he can be liable, that is, because he is charged either expressly or tacitly with the liquidation of the debts, or by reason that the law gives him the saisine of the debtor's estate.

The rulings of the Court here have hitherto been in conformity to these authors, namely, that if a testator direct his executor to pay the debts, a creditor of a debt mobiliaire can support an action against the latter.

(1) Caspar vs. Hunter:-1 Argou, p. 417:-4 Grand Coutumier de Ferrière, p. 284, § 18-2 Pigeau, pp. 391, 508 :-Ferrière, Dict. de Droit, vbo. Ex. Test. p. 571.

MONDELET, Juge, dissentiente :-L'action en cour de première instance était dirigée par le seul et unique héritier de feu Charles Joseph Chaussegros de Léry, contre les exécuteurs testamentaires de feu G. M. Douglas, aux fins de les faire condamner à lui restituer, sous huit jours, des morceaux d'or natif que lui avait prêtés son frère, le dit C. J. Chaussegros de Léry, comme échantillons des mines d'or de la seigneurie de Rigaud-Vaudreuil, où ils avaient été trouvés.

Cette action fut rencontrée par quatre plaidoyers, et entre autres, par une défense en droit par laquelle les défendeurs prétendirent qu'attendu qu'il n'est pas allégué par le demandeur, dans sa déclaration, que le dit feu G. M. Douglas avait chargé, par son testament, ses exécuteurs testamentaires de payer ses dettes, ces derniers ne sont pas passibles de l'action ainsi intentée contre eux.

Les parties ayant été entendues sur cette défense en droit, la Cour a débouté l'action et en même temps renvoyé la motion du demandeur pour permission de mettre en cause les héritiers du dit G. M. Douglas. (1)

Je suis d'avis que le jugement est bien fondé. L'action est mal intentée contre les exécuteurs testamentaires, que l'on n'allègue pas être chargés de payer les dettes du défunt. Cela posé, il ne pouvait y avoir lieu de mettre en cause les héritiers et légataires universels, contre lesquels il devient nécessaire d'intenter une action.

Le jugement dont est appel devrait donc être confirmé. Il va être infirmé par la majorité de la Cour.

MEREDITH, Justice:-The question raised in this case, was fully argued in the Superior Court about fourteen years ago, in the case of Parent vs. Langlois.

At that time, having then been but a short time in this

(1) Vide Supra, p. 55.

district, I was not familiar with the practice here; but from a note which I then made, I find I was informed by the ChiefJustice of the Superior Court, and by the Chief-Justice of this Court, then a Judge of the Superior Court, that it had been the constant practice of the Courts in this district to allow actions for personal debts against executors; and after a very careful examination of the authorities on the subject, (which I admit are conflicting) I came to the conclusion that the established jurisprudence was justified by the authorities; and that if the question had to be decided upon general principles, irrespective of authorities, that it ought to be decided in the same way. Accordingly, in the case just mentioned, (Parent vs. Langlois) the action was maintained against the executors, although the plaintiff had omitted in the declaration to allege that the will empowered the executors to pay the debts. Upon further consideration of the subject, the judgment thus rendered seems to me to be right in principle.

The creditors of an estate have plainly a right to urge their claims against the persons in actual possession of assets liable for such claims. Under the custom of Paris, executors are seized of the whole of the personal estate of the deceased, and therefore the creditors have a right to look to the executors for the payment of the personal debts; subject always to the right of the executors to call in the heirs or universal legatees, if the executors think it neces sary for their own protection, or for the interest of the heirs or legatees to do so.

This is the view taken of the subject by Marcadé, one of the most judicious commentators upon the Code. After saying that the testamentary executors as such are not bound to pay the debts of the estate, the author adds:

Quoique l'exécuteur-testamentaire ne soit jamais tenu "à ce titre de payer les dettes du défunt, il peut, en fait, "quand il a la saisine, être attaqué par les créanciers héré

"ditaires comme détenteur des meubles de la succession, "puisque ces créanciers peuvent tout aussi bien exercer leurs poursuites sur les meubles que sur les immeubles. "L'exécuteur, dans ce cas, ne devra payer que du consen "tement de l'héritier ou par ordre de la justice, pour éviter "les difficultés lors de la reddition de son compte. Il en "est autrement des dettes auxquelles sa propre adminis "tration donne lieu." (1)

The rule laid down by Macardé, and which this Court is about to act upon, seems advantageous to all parties, as tending to avoid unnecessary trouble and expense.

According to that rule, the creditors look to the persons actually seized of the personal estate of the deceased. If the liability sought to be enforced against the estate admit of any doubt, the executors, as the guardians of the estate, have a right to call in, and are in duty bound to call in the heirs or legatees. In this way, the presence of the heirs or legatees is secured when it is necessary; and the trouble and expense and delay of calling them in when unnecessary is avoided; whereas, under the opposite system, the heirs or legatees would have to be called in, in every case, although, in order to avoid expense, they might be willing to leave the settlement of the estate to the executors.

If it be said that the executors may omit to call in the heirs or legatees, the answer is that the executors are the guardians of the estate appointed by the testator; and it cannot be presumed that they will neglect their duty.

Moreover, their own interest would be a strong protec tion against the neglect of their duty in this respect.

A distinction is made by some authors between cases when the testator orders his executors to pay his debts, and those in which he does not do so. But that distinc tion seems to me unfounded.

(1) 4 Macardé, p. 114.