The  Superior  Court  (Sicotte  J.)  held  that  the  judgment  ordering  defendant
to  account  settled  the  question  of  the  liability  to  account  and  the  quality  ia
which  he  was  liable,  that  whether  considered  as  a  mandatory,  a  negotiorum
geslor,  or  as  a  pro-tutor,  the  defendant  having  confused  his  own  revenues
with  those  of  his  ward  had  acted  negligently  and  contrary  to  the  duty  incum-
bent upon  him,  and  was  liable  for  interest  in  any  case  if  a  reliquataire  (art.
1714  C.  C),  and  to  eontrainte  par  corps  (art.  290  C.  C.)

All  interest,  therefore,  charged  on  expenditure  was  struck  out,  and
the  defendant  was  charged  with  a  sum  of  $3,000  interest  upon  the  annual
balances  due  after  deducting  expenditure.  The  court  held,  also,  that
the  Belleville  property  had  been  sold  owing  to  his  negligence,  and  that  he
was  bound  to  give  its  equivalent  in  money  at  the  time  of  rendering  the
account.  He  was  liable  to  pay  $15,000,  also,  as  the  value  of  the  half
of  the  Drummond  street  property,  which  by  his  wife's  will  he  had  been
charged  to  deliver  to  the  female  plaintiff,  in  default  of  his  dehvering  it  over.
The  court  disallowed  an  item  of  $2,026  charged  among-  the  expenses,
being  the  amount  of  a  judgment  rendered  in  his  favor  on  the  cognovit  of  Mrs.
Coleman,  on  the  21st  May,  1853,  on  the  ground  that  no  sufficient  evidence  of
a  debt  existed.
169

Executors — Continued,

Other  items  of  receipts  were  charged  against  him,  including  the  $3,000

for  interest,  and  including,  also,  sums,  as  and  for  rents  bf  the  Belleville  property

from  the  year  1852,  inclusive,  making  the  total  receipts  $52,500,  from  which

an  expenditure  of  $11,222  was  to  be  deducted,  leaving  the  defendant  respon-

'  Bible  for  $41,278.
