SUSAN A. SHARPE, an Executrix of the Estate of the Late T. A. JACKSON, Appellant, v. PERNECY A. UREY, Mother and Natural Guardian of the Minor Child of T. A. Jackson, Deceased, KATE, alias GARWAY, and her sister, YANNAH, Legatees under the Will of the Late T. A. JACKSON, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE PROVISIONAL MONTHLY AND PROBATE COURT OF CAREYSBURG, MONTSERRADO COUNTY. Argued October 30, 1952. Decided December 12, 1952. 1. The Probate Court should direct and control the conduct of executors and administrators and settle their accounts. 2. Funds of an estate are trust funds, and executors and administrators are trustees thereof. 3. Executors and administrators must not promote their personal interests as against those of an heir at law. 4. It is the duty of an executor or administrator to defend all suits that may be brought against the estate and to protect the estate from doubtful or invalid claims and obligations. 5. The executor or administrator of a decedent’s estate must exercise good faith and conduct the affairs of the estate with the same measure of care and diligence which an ordinary prudent man would exercise under like circumstances in his own affairs. Appellant, an executrix, presented to the Probate Court claims, including one of her own, against the estate. Appellees, legatees of the estate filed objections thereto. The court granted a petition of counsel for both parties to refer the accounts to an arbitrator. On appeal to this Court, judgment reversed and case remanded. T. Gyibli Collins for appellant. R. 21. Henries for ap- pellees. MR. JUSTICE REEVES delivered the opinion of the Court. Thomas A. Jackson, late of Careysburg, died leaving a will in which he nominated two of his brothers, Randolph 252 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS C. and James D. Jackson, as executors, and his sister, Susan A. Sharpe, as executrix. The executors and executrix were granted letters testamentary and entered upon their duties. The instant proceedings originated when the executrix presented four personal claims against the estate : one in her own favor in the amount of $1,700.00, and three in favor of other persons. Objections to said claims were filed by Pernecy A. Urey, mother and natural guardian of the minor child of the late T. A. Jackson, Kate, alias Garway, and her sister, Yannah, named as legatees in the will of the late Thomas A. Jackson. Counsel for appellant and appellees petitioned the court to refer the accounts to arbitrators because said accounts were complicated and could not be easily passed upon and audited. This was done. The transcript of record sent forward to this Court includes testimony of witnesses who appeared before the arbitrators. One such witness, Pernecy A. Urey, an objector, testified as follows : “Q. What is your name and where do you live? “A. P. A. Urey, in Careysburg. “Q. Were you acquainted with one T. A. Jackson and if so where is he now? “A. Yes. He is dead. “Q. I presume that you were once married to the said T. A. Jackson, and that from said union a girl child, your daughter, by name of Jerusha Pernecy, was born; not so? “A. Yes. “Q. Do you recall having presented objections through Counsellor Henries against bills presented by the executors and executrix under the last will and testament of the said T. A. Jackson? “A. Yes I did. “Q. In your objections as filed and submitted, you claim the bills to be fraudulent, vicious, and malicious, with intent to deprive your daughter, the legal heir of T. A. Jackson, deceased, of the prop- LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 253 erty bequeathed to her by will. Please justify in brief said acts. “A. The reason why I say the bills are not true bills : after drawing the money from the bank, and using it up, they presented bills again, and they had different places to get money. R. C. Jackson and Susan Sharpe rented the shop to Joe Jackson for eight dollars per month for one year. From all the cane farms they collected tolls, besides his own cane farm. All was used for his illness while in Monrovia. R. C. Jackson collected first thirty tins of gin before he left for Monrovia and he had one hundred and twenty-five dollars in his trunk. They used all for his upkeep in Monrovia. With all of that they still make bills against the estate. The house furniture is in the possession of N. T. Dennis and Kate Dennis. The cattle are in the possession of R. C. Jackson. His still is on R. C. Jackson’s farm. R. C. Jackson took the stills and brass kettle. “Q. No inventory of both real and personal property left in the estate of the late T. A. Jackson has been taken by the executors and executrix of said estate? “A. As far as I know they have not filed any inventory.” We find this witness’s statements corroborated by witness Yannah, a legatee and an objector. “Q. What is your name and where do you live? “A. My name is Yannah. I stay on T. ‘A. Jackson’s place in Careysburg. “Q. Please state briefly the facts you know touching the objections filed against bills presented for payment against the estate of the late T. A. Jackson, you being one of the objectors. “A. The reason why I say that the bill is a false one, the late T. A. Jackson was a good liver in Careys- 254 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS burg. He left a cane farm and still, which was taken by R. C. Jackson, and cattle were also taken by him. Before he left for Monrovia, one hundred and twenty-five dollars was in his trunk. All was turned over to S. A. Sharpe and R. C. Jackson with the trunk with his deeds and all other legal papers. Thirty tins of gin were received by R. C. Jackson. The cost of gin at the time was eight dollars a tin and no account of this money has been given. Each cassava farm was divided in half and sold for the upkeep of the late T. A. Jackson. “Q. To the best of your knowledge did T. A. Jackson possess any household effects left in the home, such as chairs, trunk with bed clothes, beds, tables, and such other things which were seen in the home? “A. They were carried off by N. T. Dennis, wife of C. L. Dennis and sister of T. A. Jackson, before he died.” How it was possible that the Provisional Monthly and Probate Court of Careysburg permitted such a flagrant breach of responsibility to exist unobserved until the present appellees objected to the continued wasting of the estate? The appellees, legatees under the will, were justified in making their objections and opposing the careless manner in which the executors and executrix were wasting the estate and permitting other relatives of the decedent to do so. We quote from American Jurisprudence: “An executor is the person nominated by a testator to carry out the directions and requests in his will and to dispose of the property according to his testamentary provision after his decease. It also has been said that an executor may be defined as one to whom a testator has given his goods, chattels, and personal estate, for the purpose of paying all his debts. . LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 255 “Although executors and administrators are not public officers within the commonly accepted meaning of that term, both have been deemed to be officers appointed to settle decedents’ estates, and the positions which they hold are frequently referred to as ‘offices.’ Occasionally, it also has been said that an administrator is an agent who is created and whose powers and duties are prescribed by law, but this view has not met with general acceptance. Strictly speaking, the position merely resembles an office, and is a trust. The rule seems to be generally acquiesced in that executors as well as administrators are trustees, that funds of the estate in their hands are trust funds, and that they be held to the responsibilities and duties of trustees.” 21 Am. Jur. 369, 370, Executors and Administrators, �� 4� “It is the duty of an executor or administrator to defend all suits that may be brought against the estate and to protect the estate from invalid and doubtful claims and obligatons. He should interpose against such claims every legal objection that industry and care can furnish. In a suit brought by a servant for wages, an executor or administrator may raise any ground for discharge which existed during the lifetime of the employer although unknown to him. Where a suit has been begun against the decedent in his lifetime and is still pending at his death, it is the duty of his personal representatives to defend the action and for that purpose to be substituted as defendants. When the estate is sued, an executor may not by a bill of interpleader, call on legatees and heirs, whose interest he must protect, to assume the burdens of litigation which his office imposes on him. 256 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS “Where an executor has faithfully defended a suit against the estate, he will generally be protected from liability as to the beneficiaries though the outcome is adverse to the estate. For example, a judgment recovered against an executor on title paramount to the testator’s will protects him from claimants of the same property under the will, if he commits no devastavit by making a faithless or merely colorable defense. “Personal representatives of decedent must exercise good faith, care and diligence in the management and administration of the affairs of the estate they represent in such a way as to preserve the estate and protect it from loss by their own mismanagement or act of waste. Included within this duty is the obligation to protect the estate against every demand made against it which is not legally enforceable.” 2 1 Am. Jur. 496, 497, Executors and Administrators, � 223, 224. “In the custody and management of a decedent’s estate the executor or administrator is bound to exercise good faith and to conduct the affairs of the estate with the same measure of care and diligence which an ordinary prudent man would exercise under like circumstances in his own affairs. “An executor or administrator is under a duty to exercise the utmost good faith in all his transactions regarding the estate. While administrators and executors acting in good faith are treated with indulgence, and not held answerable on slight grounds, they will not be allowed to promote their own personal interest to the injury of the heirs at law; and any fraud upon the part of an executor or administrator, which tends to defeat the end of the trust reposed in him, will jus- LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 257 tify the court in declaring his acts void, whenever this can be done without prejudice to the rights of innocent third persons.” 21 Am. Jur. 515, 516, Executors and Administrators, � 250, 251. It was not the duty of the objectors to oppose the bills that were presented to the court; it was the duty of the personal representatives of decedent. The judgment below is therefore reversed and the objections remanded with instructions to the Provisional Monthly and Probate Court of Careysburg to resume jurisdiction and to direct and control the conduct and settle the accounts of the executors and executrix in harmony with the principles set forth in this opinion. All costs are to abide the final adjudication and settlement of the estate; and it is hereby so ordered. Reversed.