President :- It is quite obvious that this appeal cannot succeed. Apart from any question of law as to what could or could not be sold to satisfy the judgment obtained by A. .T. Sijuwade against Adelakun Abon in Suit No. 57/1934, it is clear that all that was in fact sold was the personal right title and interest of Adelakun Abon in the property on which the alleged trespass by tile Defendants took place. The rights of the Defendants to go upon and deal with the property were not. affected and they cannot be held liable in trespass.
But since a question of law was propounded in the Court below on which it was agreed (wrongly in our opinion) that the whole case turned, we think it right to state what in our view is the correct answer to it. The question was “whether a judgment against an executor de son tort is a judgment against the estate”. The answer to this question is that it is not a judgment against the estate and that it binds the assets of the estate only to the extent of the assets already in the hands of the executor de son tort. We think that this is what the learned judge in the Court below intended to express, though he did not put in exactly these words.
We may add that the possible effect of section 2 of the Administration (Real Estate and Small Estates) Ordinance (Cap. 13) upon the questions at issue in this case appears to have been over- looked by both parties in the Court below.
The appeal is dismissed with costs assessed at 15 guineas.