Fraudulent concealment claim survives against executors; limitation runs from discovery and damages are confined to proximate loss.

A claim for fraudulent concealment causing direct pecuniary loss survived against the executors because the statutory exception to survival of actions was confined to personal injuries, not injury to property. The suit was also within limitation, since in a fraud-based claim time ran from discovery of the fraud and the evidence showed late discovery. Damages were confined to the loss proximately caused by the concealment, not the entire embezzled sum, because the false receipts did not cause the original defalcation. The quantum of recoverable loss was therefore remitted for fresh determination.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the cause of action for fraudulent concealment and pecuniary loss survived against the executors of the deceased wrongdoer; (ii) whether the suit was barred by limitation; (iii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover the entire embezzled sum or only such loss as was proximately caused by the false receipts, and whether the matter required further inquiry on the amount recoverable.

Issue (i): whether the cause of action for fraudulent concealment and pecuniary loss survived against the executors of the deceased wrongdoer.

Analysis: The statutory exception to survival of actions was construed as confined to personal injuries in the sense of injury to the person, not injury to property. Fraud causing direct pecuniary loss was treated as a property wrong, not as defamation, assault, or another personal injury. The common-law maxim excluding claims against legal representatives therefore did not apply.

Conclusion: The cause of action survived against the executors, and the estate was liable in principle.

Issue (ii): whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The claim was treated as one founded on fraud, so time began to run from knowledge of the fraud. The evidence showed that the fraud was not discovered until much later, and the suit was filed within the period counted from that discovery.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover the entire embezzled sum or only such loss as was proximately caused by the false receipts, and whether the matter required further inquiry on the amount recoverable.

Analysis: The false receipts did not cause the original embezzlement, which had already been completed. Liability was therefore confined to the loss naturally and proximately resulting from the concealment and the resulting failure to recover what could have been recovered on timely discovery. As the record did not establish what amount, if any, could have been recovered at that time, the question of quantum required a finding by the court below.

Conclusion: Recovery was limited to the loss proximately caused by the concealment, and the issue of quantum was remitted for fresh determination.

Final Conclusion: The liability of the defendants was upheld in principle, but the matter was sent back for determination of the amount actually recoverable on the basis of proximate loss.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for fraudulent concealment causing pecuniary loss survives against the estate where the injury is to property and not a personal injury, limitation runs from discovery of the fraud, and damages are confined to loss proximately caused by the wrongful act.

---