1. In this case the plaintiff sued as manager of a temple and he-is so described in the decree which he obtained. On payment being made to him in pursuance of the decree he handed over the procet ds to the temple committee. On appeal, the plaintiff's decree was reversed, an order for restitution was made and on the failure of the plaintiff to make restitution, an application was made for execution of the order by his arrest.
2. The decree was obtained by the plaintiff in his representative capacity as trustee and the order was made against him in his representative capacity. Trust property cannot be taken in execution, where the decree is against a person who is a trustee if the debt in respect of which the decree is obtained is a personal debt. Conversely the private property of an individual cannot be taken in execution of a decree against that individual in his capacity as a trustee, excepting, of course, in a case, where the liability arises fiom a breach, of trust on the part of the trustee.Here there is no question of a breach of trust by the trustee.
3. The order of the (District Judge, in so far as it authorizes the arrest of the plaintiff by way of execution of the restitution order must be set aside.
4. As regards the memo of objections the defendants are entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent, from the date of payment by them under the decree.
5. The costs of this appeal must be paid by the defendants.
6. The costs of the memo of objections must be paid out of the trust fund.