MICHON

Respor in the po lant clait issue, Su forthe a ment Wa ves-el un oppositio

Hd :

not caus therefore

Resp rior Co against possessi seized, | sel seize pleadin, with af

NTAIRES 1872,

DGLEY,

legacies, lirecting ect, and became piration r-at-law, the parniversal W Was a ‘any accase (1)

render ad that vas beie heire déliin the he last

emainof the andnm a By is proustom, act as

InOv- D'S. At called render on, the

present action was instituted. Appellints seem to have entertained the opinion that, because x writing styled a délivrance de legs in favor of one of the particular legatees, an usufructuary, was signed by the executors, without its being stated therein that any particular sum of money had been paid over a balance established, they were thereby exempted from the obligation imposed by law on all executors to render …an account. It will be remarked that respondent was party to the délivrance, and that the whole estate was transferred to the universal legatee, en usufruit.

The court below, by its judgment rendered the 28th day of december 1869, held the contrary, by condemning the executors above named to render an account. Jourdain, one of the executors, did not appeal from the judgment.

The Court of Appeals were unanimously of opinion that the article of our Code did not apply, and that the executors could not be compelled to render any account to the heir-atlaw, under the peculiar circumstances of this case. (3 R. C, 43.)