( 04 )
Da toitoJ.
plaintiff, Francis Halliday left anothed daughter by Pauline herself.
I think that it is sufficiently clear that she purported to act inher representative capacity. The circumstances also indicate that,the children being minors, Pauline was in possession generally ofher husband’s property. A suit against a widow for the debts ofher deceased husband, when she is in possession of the property ofthe estate, is the most common instance of suits against executorsde son tort. In Sellane t>. Thyalamuttu,1 which was a case of thatkind, it was held, as it was in Prin$ v. Pieris (supra); that a Fiscal’ssale in. execution of the decree was binding upon the heirs, anda private sale for payment of the judgment debt cannot be lessbinding. I may also refer to Silva v. Salman,2 which enunciatesthe principle of law governing the subject under consideration.
In my opinion this appeal fails.I think, however, that the
claim by plaintiffs was not wholly unreasonable, and that theaction was not improperly brought, so as to justify the order to paydouble stamp duty. I would delete that part of the decree appealedfrom, but, subject to that modification, I would dismiss the appeal,with costs.
Wood Benton C.J.t—I agree.
Appeal dismissed-
1 (1901) 4 S. O. D. 65
*(1916) 19 N. L. R, 606.