Skip to content


Debendra Nath Biswas Vs. Hem Chandra Roy - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1904)ILR31Cal253
AppellantDebendra Nath Biswas
RespondentHem Chandra Roy
Cases ReferredPrivy Council of Labouchere v. Tupper
Excerpt:
executor, debt contracted by - co-executor liability--liability of estate for debt incurred by executor. - .....creditors against the executors of a deceased gentleman, and the object of the suit is to have his estate rendered liable for a debt which was contracted by one of the executors alone. there were four executors, and the suit is brought on a promissory note given by one of then alone for goods apparently supplied to the estate. the question is whether the estate can be made liable. i do not think it can. i refer only to two cases, the case of farhall v. farhall (1871) l.r. 7 ch. 123 where sir george mellish says: 'it appears to me to be settled' law that, upon a contract of borrowing made by an executor after the death of the testator, the executor is only liable personally, and cannot be sued as executor so as to get execution against the assets of the testator'; and the same principle.....
Judgment:

Francis W. Maclean, C.J.

1. This is a suit by certain creditors against the executors of a deceased gentleman, and the object of the suit is to have his estate rendered liable for a debt which was contracted by one of the executors alone. There were four executors, and the suit is brought on a promissory note given by one of then alone for goods apparently supplied to the estate. The question is whether the estate can be made liable. I do not think it can. I refer only to two cases, the case of Farhall v. Farhall (1871) L.R. 7 Ch. 123 where Sir George Mellish says: 'It appears to me to be settled' law that, upon a contract of borrowing made by an executor after the death of the testator, the executor is only liable personally, and cannot be sued as executor so as to get execution against the assets of the testator'; and the same principle waylaid down in the case before the Privy Council of Labouchere v. Tupper (1857) 11 Moo. P.C.C. 198.

2. The appeal must be allowed in favour of the present appoints, but the decree of the lower Court will stand as against the executor who gave the promissory note--the defendant No. 1 Bipin Behary Chowdhry.

3. This case was before the Court a short time back, and it stood over in order that the defendant No. 1 might be served with notice of the appeal. It has been served, but he does not appear. The appellants are entitled to costs in all the Courts.

Geidt, J.

4. I concur.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //