THE COLONIAL GOVERNMENT vs MRS. IRNE CLOSEL AND ORS.

1949 MR 1 J G ESPITALIER-NOL, Ag. C.J. & R BROUARD Ag. J. (separate judgments) J G ESPITALIER-NOL, Ag. C.J. This claim arises out of the following circumstances: The defendants are the parents of Liliane and Marcelle Maulgu who, through the incidence of war, found themselves in straitened circumstances in the unoccupied zone of France between the years 1941 and 1943. During that period the defendants' daughters, who were holders of passports issued by the Government of Mauritius, received from the British Official Relief Fund, various sums amounting to 1284-6shs.-6d or Rs. 3,791. That amount was made good to the Relief Fund by the British Foreign Office and refunded to the Foreign Office by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs aver: (a) (b) that, at the time these sums were paid, the misses Maulgu being cut off from their main source of maintenance, were reduced to exigency; that had it been possible for these two ladies to apply then to their parents (the defendants) for assistance, the latter would have been bound in law to support them and to pay to them what is known in French law as the " dette alimentaire; that they (the plaintiffs), standing as they do now in the shoes of the Foreign Office and of the British Official Relief Fund, have a right of action for the refund of the amount paid and that such action can be exercised by them as negotiorum gestor directly against the defendants.

(c)

The defendants, in their statement of defence, had pleaded that the plaintiffs were not "legally substituted to the Foreign Office at the time the payments were made by the plaintiffs to the Foreign Office" and they had denied that the misses Maulgu had received relief when in straitened circumstances; at the trial, learned counsel for the defendants stated that, after examination of, the numerous documents produced, he would not press those two points. He submitted that, even if the misses Maulgu had found themselves at the time in straitened circumstances and had had to apply to the Relief Fund for their subsistence the plaintiffs could not claim the amounts paid by the Fund directly from the defendants; that before the plaintiffs could have a right of action against the defendants they should establish: (a) (b) that the defendants' daughters had no personal means and could not either through their work or revenue refund the sums they had received; and that the defendants had sufficient income at the time to pay an alimentary allowance to their daughters. Learned counsel urged that the documentary evidence made it clear that the various sums had been

advanced as loans and were meant to be repaid by the misses Maulgu personally. The points which arise for consideration are: What is the nature of the l'obligation alimentaire ? obligation known under French law as

What are the rights and duties which flow from that obligation ? For the purposes of this judgment I need only consider these questions in connection with the duty imposed upon parents to assist their children when in want and examine: (a) What facts must be established by the children who claim an alimentary allowance; and (b) what are the, defences which are open to the parents from whom the allowance is claimed ? Chapter V under the fifth. Title of Book I of the Code Napolon (arts. 203 to 211) deals with these questions. Article 205 has been repealed by section 11 and replaced by section 9 of Ordinance No. 23 of 1907. The relevant part thereof is in substance the reproduction of the old art. 205 C. Nap. and reads: "Children owe a maintenance to their father,. their mother and their ascendants who are poor. "In its origina form art.205 enacted that "Les enfants doivent des aliments leur pre et mre et autres ascendants qui sont dans le besoin Article 207 provides that Les obligations rsultant de ces dispositions (i.e., art. 205 et seq.) sont rciproques." The effect of those enactments is to impose a legal duty upon parents to support their children (de leur fournir des aliments) whenever they are in want (dans le besoin). Aliments includes all that is indispensable to life, such as food, clothing and housing; and to be dans le besoin implies an impossibility to provide personally for one's maintenance. (Vide Baudry Lacantinerie et Fourcade, Vol. III, pp. 641 and seq.). A child who is actually dans le besoin has a right to claim an alimentary allowance from his parents; that right springs from the very fact of the child finding himself in straitened circumstances, and the legal duty cast upon his parents to pay an alimentary allowance exists from the very moment the child is in want without it being necessary for the child to claim it. "La dette 1gale d'aliments" says Demolombe, Vol. IX, at page 65," existe ds que les besoins sont ns, avant tout paiement, avant toute demande." As regards the facts which must be established in support of a claim for alimentary allowance and the defences which can be opposed to such a claim I am in presence of two schools.

I find in Dalloz C.C.A, under article 208: Note 35. Suivant la majorit des anciens auteurs et la jurisprudence, ce n'est pas celui qui rclame des aliments, bien que demandeur, prouver son tat d'indigence; c'est an dfendeur prouver que le rclamant a des moyens d'existence suffisants." and under note 39: Mais ce systme est rejet par les auteurs les plus rcents qui enseignent, au contraire, que le rclamant doit tablir avec preuves l'appui, dans la mesure du possible, qu'il est dans le besoin, sauf au dfendeur contester ses affirmations et prouver la dissimulation des ressources du demandeur." After referring to the authors and jurisprudence on the question, I think that the better opinion is that the claimant should make out a prima facie case that he is in want, and that it is then for the defendant to show either that the claimant has sufficient means or that he is himself too poor to assist the claimant with an alimentary allowance. Le rclamant" says Baudry Lacantinerie, Prcis du Droit Civil, Tome I, NO. 542, "droit prouver qu'il est dans le besoin: car c'est l une condition indispensable au succs de sa demande. Toutefois une preuve rigoureuse ne devra pas toujours tre exige; elle serait quelquefois impossible, par exemple si le demandeur prtend n'avoir aucun bien. Le rclamant devra indiquer 1'tat de sa fortune, dposer en quelque sorte son bilan, avec preuves lappui dans la mesure du possible. Baudry Lacantinerie et Fourcade, Tome. 3, No. 2072: Celle qui vient d'tre tudie (i.e, la condition d'tre dans le besoin) est effectivement la seule qui soit requise en la personne du crancier. Et d'abord il a droit aux aliments, quel que soit son ge, ds que son besoin est tabli, de quelque cause qu'il procde (See also Aubry et Rau, Vol. IX P. 164 ; Planiol et Ripert, Trait Elmentaire du Droit Civil, Vol. I No. 676). From what precedes it seems sufficiently clear that if the misses Maulgu who, it is admitted, were in straitened circumstances when they were assisted by the Relief Fund, had been able to claim at the time an alimentary allowance from their parents, the latter would have been bound in law to pay such allowance unless they could have proved that they themselves had not sufficient means to assist their children. It is not suggested that the pecuniary position of the defendants would not have allowed them to provide for the maintenance of their daughters but, it is stated, the payments effected were loans which had been made to the misses Maulgu for their temporary subsistence, these ladies had bound themselves to repay those debts personally, and if the several amounts received by them had been provided by their parents at the time, the parents would have been entitled to claim back from their daughters the sums they had advanced for temporary maintenance. For these reasons it is submitted that the plaintiffs should not have sued the defendants before they had claimed the

refund of the advances made from the misses Maulgu personally or from the communities which now exist between each of them and their respective husbands. If it is true that, in certain cases, parents who have supported their children who were temporarily in want can claim to be reimbursed by them, it does not follow necessarily that in the present case the plaintiffs have no direct right of action against the defendants. The position here is, I am satisfied, the following: the defendants' daughters were during the periods mentioned in the statement of claim dans le besoin; from that moment, without it being necessary for the daughters to put in a claim for assistance, the dette alimentaire was born and was due by the parents; there was no possibility for the daughters then to ask their parents to support them; the children did apply and receive from a third party, the British Official Relief Fund, the alimentary allowance which it was incumbent upon the parents to pay. The question which arises therefore is: In the circumstances, have the plaintiffs who now stand in the shoes of the Foreign Office and of the Relief Fund a direct right of action against the defendants either as negotiorum gestor or in the exercise of the rights, of their debtor under art. 1166 C. Nap. or again in virtue of the action de in rem verso ? The following excerpts from French authors answer the question: Demolombel Vol. IV, Nos. 52,53 and 55.; Le mot aliments comprend tout ce qui est ncessaire aux besoins de lexistence Elle n'emporte donc pas l'obligation de payer les dettes que la personne, qui les aliments sont ds, pourrait avoir contractes . "Mais les dettes alimentaires? ..." ont t contractes pour cause de besoins

Je crois,qu'il appartient aux magistrats d'apprcier alors toutes les circonstances du fait, la cause vritable de la dette, son plus on moins d'importance et d'anciennet, surtout la ncessit o celui qui les aliments taient ds a pu se trouver de les prendre , credit; et s'ils reconnaissent que la dette est en effet srieuse, 1gitirne, modique, ils ont le pouvoir de condamner celui qui doit les aliments l'acquitter; sans doute nemo vivit in preteritum; et l'obligation de nourrir une personne ne s'applique rgulirement qu'a ses besoins venir. Mais, d'un autre ct, la dette 1gale d'aliments existe ds que les besoins sont ns, avant tout jugement, avant toute demande; et, ds lors, on est autoris dire que les dettes contractes par celui qui tait dj dans le besoin, contractes, dis-je, pour cause d'aliments, taient la charge de celui qui dj ce moment, tait dbiteur de ces aliments. Cette solution, d'ailleurs, est reclame par l'quit, par l'humanit. Il ne faut pas priver absolument de tout crdit celui qui, dans sa dtresse, ne pourrait pas l'instant mme s'adresser ses parents ou allis ! Il faut, au contraire, encourager les tiers le secourir ds qu'ils le font de bonne foi et dans des limites raisonnables." Baudry Lacantinerie et Fourcade, Vol. III, pp. 642 et seq.

2078. "Mais l'obligation alimentaire n'entraine pas avec elle celle de payer les dettes de cette personne 2079. "Cette rgle doit tre maintenue mme en ce qui concerne les dettes contractes pour faire face des besoins alimentaites. L'obligation qui incombe certaines personnes d'en assister d'autres a pour but de donner ces dernires les moyens de soutenir leur vie, et n'existe que dans la mesure o ces moyens leur sont ncessaires. Or, lorsqu'elles ont pu les demander dans le pass au crdit, c'est que cette ncessit ne s'tait pas encore produite: aussi n'ont elles mme pas song s'en prvaloir. Sans doute cette obligation, qui est purement 1gale, existe la charge de ceux qu'elle grve avant toute demande en justice. Mais encore faut-il que ceux qui elle profite aient manifest, de quelque faon que ce soit, leur intention d'en rclamer 1'excution et affirm par l leur besoin, sans quoi il serait plus tard trop difficile de savoir exactement quelle poque il est n." 2080. " Et toutefois on admet gnralement que ces dettes doivent tre payes par les obligs, lorsque les circonstances expliquent suffisamment le dfaut de demande de ceux qui les aliments taient ds. Cette solution, qui n'est justifie d'ordinaire que par de pures considrations d'quit, semble pouvoir ltre par ce motif juridique que l'impossibilit plus ou moins complte dans laquelle ils ont pu se trouver d'exiger 1'excution de l'obligation alimentaire ne saurait les priver de son bnfice. Il faut, au contraire, pour que le but de la loi soit pleinement atteint, qu'il leur soit possible ainsi de recourir au crdit, pour vivre jusqua l'heure o il leur sera permis de former leur demande. Or ce crdit leur sera singulirement facilit, s'ils ont un recours contre les obligds pour leur faire payer les fournitures qu'ils obtiennent, grace lui, dans les limites de leurs besoins rels." 2081. "S'il en est ainsi, on doit reconnatre aux tiers qui leur ont ouvert ce crdit la facult d'agir directement contre ceux qui sont tenus de l'obligation alimentaire, soit que ceux auxquels ils ont fait des fournitures leur aient cd leur propre crance, auquel cas cette facult ne saurait tre douteuse, soit qu'ils prtendent simpleinent exercer les droits de leur dbiteur en vertu de l'art. 1166, cas dans lequel elle ne parait pas beaucoup plus contestable. Car, si l'on doit considrer comme personnel le droit aux aliments, en ce sens que les cranciers ne puissent pas l'invoquer pour procurer leur dbiteur des ressources qui resteraient l'abri de leurs atteintes, on ne saurait le dclarer tel en tant qu'ils s'en prvalent pour se faire payer des dettes qu'il n'a pas dpendu de celui-ci dviter, en se faisant octroyer plus tt une pension alimentaire." .2082. "Les mmes motifs doivent faire dcider que les tiers qui ont pris sur eux, sans aucune intention de libralit, de pourvoir tous les besoins d'une personne, ont une action en rptition contre celles qui cette charge incombait, en vertu de l'obligation alimentaire. Ils doivent tre considrs comme ayant gr leur affaire, et leur recours doit alors avoir pour mesure l'utilit de cette gestion (Vide also Aubry et Rau, Vol. IX, pp. 166 et seq.; Pandectes Franaises, Vo. Aliments, No. 593; Dalloz Hebdomadaire, l838, p. 248; Baudry Lacantinerie, Prcis de Droit Civil, Tome I No. 540bis). I must therefore conclude that the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment in whatever sums the British Official Relief Fund has paid to defendants' daughters for maintenance (aliments) and which have

been refunded by the plaintiffs but not in the amounts which have been advanced for travelling. In the particulars furnished by the plaintiffs it is not easy in all instances to know exactly what amount has been paid for maintenance and what sum for travelling, as both advances are claimed under one item, and I think that the parties should be heard on the point before judgment can be given for a definite sum. Being given the novelty and nicety of the points in issue, no order should, in my opinion, be made as to costs. * R. Brouard Ag. J.: This is a claim by the Colonial Government of Mauritius against 1. Mrs. Irne Closel, the duly authorized wife of Yves Maulgu, and 2. Yves Maulgu, in his own personal name and for the authorization of his wife and the validity of the proceedings, for the refund of a sum of Rs. 3,791 with interest and costs, representing. 284-6sh.-6d. at 1sh.-6d per rupee, the value of advances made to defendants' daughters Louise Liliane Maulgu and Marie Jeanne Marcelle Mautgu in 1941-1942 and 1943 at the critical period of the war in Europe. The said advances were made to the misses Maulgu by the British Official Relief Fund through the British Consuls at Barcelona and Lisbon, the American Consuls at Marseilles and Lyons, and the Swiss Consul at Marseilles. It is alleged, and accepted by the defendants, that the said advances were made for the maintenance and travelling expenses of the said misses Maulgu and the amount of relief granted to each of these ladies is as follows 108 126 49 284 S 00 11 14 06 d 00 08 10 06 * * * *

(a) Miss Liliane Maulgu from 26th April 1941 to 1st December 1942 (b) Miss Marcelle Maulgu from the 4th October 1941 to March 1943 And Total

entirely for maintenance for maintenance For travelling

The said advances were in due course made good to the British Relief Fund by the Foreign Office which in its turn obtained payment of same from the Colonial Office which was finally refunded by the plaintiff through the Crown Agents. In support of plaintiff's claim the learned Substitute Procureur General has produced (1) the correspondence between the Crown Agents and the Accountant General, Mauritius, concerning the said advances, either in original or in certified true copies, (2) certified true copies of vouches establishing payments of these advances by the Crown Agents to the Paymaster General, England, (3) some other documents emanating from the Red Cross and the Secretary

of State for the Colonies, (4) 17 vouchers marked E2 to E18 witnessing payments made to Miss Marcelle Maulgu, (5) 19 vouchers marked F1 to F 19 witnessing payments made to Miss Liliane Maulgu. The defendants accept that: (a) the advances claimed have actually been made to their daughters at a time when these ladies were in straitened circumstances; (b) the British Relief Fund was not a charitable institution; Official and the

(c) the refunds as stated above between the British Relief Fund, the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office Government of Mauritius were actually effected; and

(d) the misses Maulgu were British subjects born in Mauritius and travelling overseas with passports issued by the Government of Mauritius. The misses Maulgu were both of age at the time all these advances except one (the first one in the case of Miss Marcelle Maulgu which was made a few days before she came of age) were made to them The defendants contend that: (a) before entering the present action plaintiff or the Colonial Office or the Foreign Office or the British Official Relief Fund should have requested either: (i) the misses Maulgu personally or,(ii)the community existing between the said misses Maulgu and their respective husbands, Mr. Charles Venissant and Mr. Charles Cur, to whom according to the defendants they were civilly married on 22nd November, 1941), and 5th September, 1946, respectively, to refund those advances; it has not been established that at the time the advances were made the misses Maulgu were in need of alimony.

(b)

Before proceeding with the examination of the legal aspect of the case I think it essential to scrutinize some of the documents produced. All the vouchers of acknowledgment of loans are headed "Official Relief" and, according to vouchers marked E 2 to E 15, Miss Marcelle Maulgu gives her domicile as "Phoenix, Mauritius" and declares that it is her intention to return to British territory-which may mean Mauritius-as soon as she obtains permission to do so. Then comes the acknowledgment of indebtedness reading as follows: "I hereby acknowledge having received from the British Consular Office in the unoccupied zone of France the sum of Francs being the equivalent of at the rate of which sum I hereby bind myself, my heirs, executors and administrators to refund in sterling to the Foreign Office, London, on demand."

At the bottom of the document there is a note in the corner reading: I have relatives or friends at the following address and I hereby request that they be asked to make provision for my maintenance here. Names: Mr. Yves Maulgu; address: Phoenix, Mauritius," and finally the document is signed by the said Marcelle Maulgu. Documents E 16 to E 19 are somewhat differently drafted and are acknowledgments of "advances for maintenance and travelling expenses" which Miss Marcelle Maulgu undertakes to "repay on demand" and there is no note or mention of any relatives or friends who should be requested to make provision for her maintenance. Documents F 2 to F 18 concerning Miss Liliane Maulgu are similar to documents E 2 to E 15 except that Miss Liliane Maulgu gives in them her bank's address as "Lloyds Foreign Bank, Port Louis, Ile Maurice, Ocean Indien" for, what this may mean, and there is also a mention that she was drawing a monthly pension of "Francs 1,000" without any specification from whom. Document F 19 is exactly similar to documents E 2 to E 15. Letter marked GG I from the Colonial Office to the Crown Agents dated 13th August, I946, after explaining the circumstances under which those advances were made to the Misses Maulgu speaks of a claim to be made on the Mauritius Government for refund of the money so advanced,"alluding, it seems, to the fact that the Misses Maulgu gave their address as Phoenix, Mauritius, and are Mauritians; Document marked GG 5 speaks of the undertaking taken by Miss Marcelle Maulgu to repay the advances made to her. Let us now examine the legal aspect of the claim:It is established jurisprudence that under art. 203- C,.C. parents are jointly responsible for the maintenance, feeding and education of their minor children, so long as their children are under 18 years of age, i.e., whilst the parents have still the legal usufruct of the properties belonging to their minor children. (Vide note 47, of Dalloz, Code Civil Annot, art, 13Ol; Planiol et Ripert, Vol. 12, p. 18, para. 22; Pandectes, Vo. Aliments, para. 58). There is also authority to the effect that third parties who have not even been authorized by parents but have nevertheless through necessity and without intention de libralit provided for minor children can claim as negotiorum gestor against parents the refund of the sums advanced by them provided their administration has been useful to the Children-Vide notes 1 to 15, 19 and note 34 of Dalloz, Code Civil Annot. We read at note 31 art. 203 of Dalloz, Code Civil Annot "Les ascendants ne peuvent tre tenus alimentaire si 1'enfant est sans ressources." At note 40: qua, l'obligation

Lorsque 1'enfant a des biens personnels, il y a lieu de distinguer, suivant que les pre et mre ont ou non l'usufruit 1gal de ces biens." From the above it appears that even in the case of minor children parents are bound to provide for their children only when the children have no private means to provide for themselves. (Vide Dalloz Priodique,1937, part 11, note at p. 104; Dalloz Priodique, 1912, part I, p. 74). What is the position of parents in relation to children of age? Article 205 of the Code Napolon repealed and replaced by section have been copied from the French 205 of the French Code), except sont dans le besoin whereas our poor." as it formerly applied to this colony has been 11 of Ordinance No. 23 of 1907, which seems to law of the 9th March, 1891, (the present art. that the French text speaks of ascendants qui text (sec. 11) speaks of "ascendants who are

Article 207 of the Civil Code speaks of the reciprocity of assistance and maintenance of children of age by parents and vice versa whatever may be the age of the child. We read at note 35 of Dalloz Code Civil Annot: Le droit de reclamer des aliments est personnel celui auquel il est accord par la loi. Les cranciers notamment ne peuvent l'exercer. The same principle has been enumerated in Rainsley v. Lagoarde,MR 1938 p. 117. Vide also note 31 of art. 207 of Dalloz, C.C. Annot. Article 208 of C.C. reads thus: Les aliments ne sont accords que dans la proportion du besoin de celui qui les rclame et la fortune de celui qui les doit. Note 7 of Dalloz, Code Civil Annot, of that above article reads: Les besoins de ceux qui rclament des aliments doivent tre apprcis d'aprs leur age, leur sexe, lour ducation, leur position sociale, etc., enfin d'aprs une foule de circonstances dont les tribunaux sont les juges, souverains. Note 14 De, mme celui qui n'est pas dpourvu de biens ne se trouve pas dans le cas d'exercer l'action alimentaire. " We read in Planiol, Trait E1mentaire de Droit Civil, Vol. 1 note 676: Preuve fournir: La loi n'a rien dit. En gnral, les auteurs dcident que le rclamant n'a rien prouver, et c'est ainsi que les choses se passent en pratique; il dpose en quelque sorte son bilan, allguant l'insuffisance de ses ressources, ou leur absence complte, et c'est le dfendeur qui cherche viter une condamnation, en essayant de prouver

soit que le rclamant a des ressources plus considrables que celles qu'il avoue, soit que lui-mme n'a pas les moyens de venir son secours. Vide also Dalloz, Jurisprudence Gnrale, Vo. Mariage, notes 335,336, 363, 662, Demolombe, Vol. 4, para. 44, 47 and 48, Baudry Lacantinerie Houques-Fourcade, Vol. 3, para. 2065 and following, more especially para. 2068, Aubry et Rau, Vol. 9 p. 1644, Laurent, Vol. 3 para. 72. It seems therefore that it is for a child claiming alimony, to make a prima facie case, deposer son bilan," and to establish that he has no means and needs assistance subject to that contention being rebutted by the other party. Of course the "dbiteur d'aliments" can always prove that he has not the means to provide for the alimony (Vide Huc, Tome, 2, para. 205, 206 Pandectes, Vo. Aliments, notes 253, 154). We read in Planiol et Ripert, Vol. 2 para. 32: Pour que les aliments soient ds il faut deux conditions: (1) Le crancier d'aliments doit tre dans le besoin. (2) Le dbiteur doit tre en tat de les fournir. and at para. 33: "L'indigence est une question de fait qui est tranche sommairement par les juges du fond. Le besoin d'une personne doit tre apprci d'aprs les revenus qu'elle a . Un individu qui peut se procurer de quoi vivre en travaillant n'a pas droit des aliments. Inversement un individu qui possde des biens importants mais qui ne peut en tirer des revenus aura droit des aliments, le dbiteur ne pourrait prtendre 1'obliger les vendre pour se procurer avec le prix une rente viagre suffisante; le besoin du crancier existe daus le manque actuel de revenus. Note 2 of art. 208 of Dalloz, Code Civil Annot, reads: La demande d'aliments ne serait pas fonde si la partie qui la rclame se trouvait seulement dans une position gne." Notes 3 et 4: On ne doit, en principe, allouer des aliments dans le cas de simple interruption des moyens d'existence produite par la maladie, le manque de travail etc. En pareil cas les juges ont apprcier s'il est possible au rclamant de se procurer des ressources par des emprunts ou autres moyens transitoires." Note 5: Et ils pourraient suivant les circonstances obliger ceux qui sont tenus de la dette alimentaire foumir les avances dont le demandeur auraient besoin.

Vide also Dalloz, jurisprudence Gnrale, 1885, 11me partie, p. 69; Dalloz, 1900, jurisprudence Gnrale, 11me partie, p. 111. From the above it appears that under special circumstances it is possible to compel the would be "dbiteur d'aliments" to provide for the advances to be made. As it has been stated above the misses Maulgu were at the time those advances were made to them holders of British passports and we find in the words of Lord Alverstone L.C.J. in Brailsford's case, 1905, 2 K.B.730, at p.745 that: a passport is a document issued in the name of the Sovereign on the responsibility of a minister of the Crown to a named individual, intended to be presented to the governments of foreign nations and to be used for the individual's protection as a British subject in foreign countries; and there is no doubt that the misses Maulgu were entitled to the protection of the representatives of the British government in the foreign countries in which they were at the time (Vide Joyce v. Director of Public Prosecution-All England Law Reports, 1945, p. 186). Can it be said that by making those advances through their representatives abroad the British Government has been acting as negotiorum gestor on behalf of the person or persons who were in duty bound to provide for the misses Maulgu ? Note 53 of art. 209 of Dalloz, Code Civil Annot, reads as follows: Si le tiers n'a pas t charg par le dbiteur des aliments de les fournir en son lieu et place, il ne peut fonder sa rclamation que sur un quasi contrat de gestion d'affaires." The action negotiorum gestor is according to art. 1372 C.C. based on the principle of equity that "nul n'a le droit de, s'enrichir aux dpens d'autrui. So that if someone has done something good and useful for another person and that person has benefited by it, the party who by thus acting has incurred certain expenses has the right to claim as negotiorum gestor but it is for the Court to decide if the "action du grant" has been good, useful and reasonable (art. 1375 C.C.). Can it be said that by making the advances to the misses Maulgu the British Relief Fund has been acting on behalf of the defendants and that the present plaintiff now acting in the rights of the British Relief Fund can claim the said advances from the defendants ? From the authorities above quoted the misses be paid alimony by the defendants if they travelling expenses. Besides, before being Maulgu would have had to establish that they Maulgu would only be entitled to were in need of it but not to entitled to alimony, the misses were not temporarily destitute but

permanently so and that it was not possible for them to manage without the money claimed by them. In a rather recent case before the Court of Cassation dated 28th February, 1938, and reported in Dalloz Hebdomadaire 1938 at p. 241 we read: " L'obligation alimentaire qui est la fois morale et civile existe virtuellement par le seul fait de la parent et la survenance de l'indigence chez le crancier d'aliments n'a d'autre effet que de rendre cette obligation exigible; par suite, si un crancier ventuel d'aliments est dans la ncessit de contracter une dette pour subvenir son besoin imprieux et urgent, avant d'avoir pu faire constater par justice l'exigibilit de sa crance d'aliments, celui envers qui il s'est oblig a un recours contre le dbiteur de la dette alimentaire apprcie en tenant compte des facults du dbiteur et de l'injuste appauvrissement dont le crancier serait victime s'il tait priv d'un molument convenable." This case seems to be very similar to the present one, inasmuch as the time those advances were made the misses Maulgu had through the incidence of war "un besoin imprieux of the relief which was granted to them. Whether we consider those advances as "dette alimentaire" or purely and simply as advances for maintenance does not to my mind matter, as in both cases the defendants would have had to provide for same although they can if they so choose claim their repayment in due course from their daughters. I therefore consider, that judgment should go for the plaintiff only for that part of the claim concerning those sums paid by the British Relief Fund for the maintenance of the misses Maulgu. I agree with my brother the acting Chief justice that the parties should submit to us their views on this point. I also agree with him that no order should be made as to costs. As I have come to that conclusion I find it unnecessary to examine further: (a) (b) whether in fact the misses Maulgu are married, or not; and whether a claim could have been entered against the alleged communities existing between them and their respective husbands

Plaintiff Respondents

Crown Attorney R Espitalier-Nol, S P G Attorney C Forget J Koenig, of Counsel

Record No. 4229.