lAAAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARiGET (MT-3)

^^.

4l

■*-,

""St

K

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

V

y "«■.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductipns historiques

/^f

A

Twhnical and Biblioflraphic Notts / Notts taehniquas at bibliographiquas

Tha Institutti has attampted to obtain tha bast original
ebpy avaiiabia for filming. Faaturas of this copy which
may ba bibliographically uniqua, which may altar any
of tha imagas in thk raproduction. or which may
' sigfHficantly change tha usual mathod of filming, ara
"Chaohad balow.

□ Colourad eovars/ "
Couvartura da coulaur

L'Institut a microfilm^ la maillaur axamplaira qu'il
lui a *t« pouibia da sa prpcurar. Las details da cat
axamplaira qui sbnt paut-ltra uniques du point da vua
bibliographiqua, qui pauvant modifier une image
reproduite. ou qui invent exiger une modification
dans |a ntdthoda normale de f ilmaga sont indiqufa
ci-da^out.

□ Covers damagad/
Couverttire ehdommagta

D

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couvartura rastaurjia at/ou palliculie

□ Coloured pages/
Pfeges de couleur

□ Pkges damaged/*
Pkgn endommagies

□ Pkgas restored and/or laminated/
Pkgas restayrtas at/ou pelliculias

□ Cover title missing/
Le titre de eouveHura manque

.^

a

"ffegn discoloured, stained or foxed/
P»ges MeelQrles. tacheties ou piqutes

□ Coloured maps/
Cartas gtographiques an

A",

n

Coloured ink (i.e. other than Muror Mack)/
Encra de coulaur (i.e. autre qua Mai^ou noire)

CohHired plates and/or illustrations/
Plandies et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with othei^ matariair
Ralii avac d'autres documanti

m Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion
akmg intartor margin/

La raliure sarrle peut caiMer de I'ombre ou de la
distorsion la long de |a marge inttrieure .

D

Blank laaviw added during restoration may appear

within the taxt Whenever possible. thMe have

been omitted from filmkig/

II sa peut que «erttines pages bkmchcs ajoutfas

tors d'une restauration ipparaitsent jdans le taxtt,

mais. loi^u* oala toit possibie, ees p^ges n'ont

pasMfilmtes.

Q

AdditkHMri comments:/
Commentaires supplimanttiras:

/

□ Pkges detached/
Pkgesdtochtes

QShowthrough/
Transparence

■*►

□ Quality of print varies/
Qualiti biigala de I'impression

•,■<■-' ' «

□ Continuous pagination/
Pagination continue

7^ . . • •

•/ r~~~| Includes indexte)/

L_J Comprtnd un (des) index

Title on header taken from:/
Le titra de t'en-tlta provient: -

□ Title page of issue/ • ;

Page de titre de la livrfison

□ Caption of issue/ /
Titre de depart de la livraison

□ Masthead/
G«n«riqua (p«rHMlk|ues) de la livraison

Various paging*. There are some creases in the middle of pagSes.
Pagination multiple. 11 y a des pi is dans le milieu des page?.

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked beknv/

%

''\

1

0

fi

C

b
ti
si
o

fl

•I

Ol

TI

n

M
dil

•II
ba

r«4

^j» . - »

_

Cado

10X

cumai

It est

film«

autai

14X

IX da

rWue

tionk

>■

^quicMi
18X

ISSOUS

22X

■' -

26X

-

30X

•

/

\

/

^^

M^KI

— ■_

"•

'

^^^^^^

MM

«

/-

*

. -.

•

■■.:/■ . 1 .

12X leiT

. aOX |4X . 28X

,

32X

'^*

■i>%'

j' '

' * ^ ■ n

■ i

i«t

J« VIM

I

Ion
Is

'■\ .

■N

th« eopy fllmad h«r« has
to th« o«n«ro«ity of:

roprodueod thanki

La* Library

Ifcifverslty of Vestern Ontario

Tho imagos appooring hara mrm tha baat quality
poaaibM conaidaring tha condition and lagibiiity
of tha original copy and in icaaping with tha
filming contract spacif ieationa.

Original eopiaa In printad papar covara ara fllmad
baginning with tha front covar and anding on
tha laat paga wlt^ a printad or Hluatratad impraa-
aion. or tha bacic covOr whan appropriata. AN
othar original eopiaa ara filmad baginning on tha
firat paga with a printad or Hluatratad impraa-
alon. and anding on tha laat paga with a printad
or tHuatratad impraaaion.

Tholaat racordad fraoa on aach microficha
ahall eontafh tha «yiwCT»i » (maaning "CON-
TINUEO"). or tha symbol ▼ (maaning "END"),
whichavar appliaa.

Mapa. piataa, charts, afp.. may ba filmad at
diffarant raduction ratioa. Thosa too larga to ba
ahtiraiy includad in ona axpoauni ara filmad
baginning in tha uppar laft hand oomar. laft to
right and top to bottom, as many framas as
raquirad. Tha following diagrama illustrata tha
mathod:

m

■'-•,

1

2

3

■ aa'

\

B

32X

*

«

**%..

■;■''. /■■.■■

■•

•/ ■■ ■ . ■ •;;•.

L'a»ampiaira'film4 fut raproiiuit grica A la
g4nArositA da.' ' . *

;■ < ■ ■■ ': V

Lot Library

Unlyerrsfty of Vestorn Ontario

Us imagas suivantas oht 4tA raj^roduitos avac la
plus grand soin. ebmpta tanu da la condition at
da la nattat* da laxamplaira film*, at 91%
eonformit« avac las conditions du^ontrat da
nlmaga. « ^ .

Laa axamplairas originaux dont la couvartura an
papiar aat ImprimAa sont filmte wx eommaneant
par la pramiar plat at an tarminant sait par la
darni*ra paga qui comporta una amprainta
d imprassion ou d'illustration. soit par ia sacond
plat, salon If cas. Toua laa autraa sixamplairas
originaux sont filmto an commandant par la
pramlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta
d'Imprasslpn ou d'illustration at an tarminant par
la dami#ro°"paga qui comporta una talla
amprainta.- : ■ i'^ ■

Un daa aymbolas suivimts apparattra sur la ■
darnlAra imaga da chiqua microficha. salon Ja
cas: la symbols —^ sigriifia "A SUIVRE". la
symboia ▼. signifia "FIN".

' /

Laa cartaa, planchas. tab'laaux, ^c. pauvant Atra
f llmAs A das taux da rAduction diff Arams.
Lorsqua la documant aat trap grand pour Atra ^
raproduit an un sAul clichA. il ast f ilmA A partir
da I'angia si|pAriaur gaucha, da gaucNa A droita.
at da haut an bas. an pranant la nombra
d'imagaa nAcassaira. Las diagrammas suivants
iNustrant ia mAthoda.

6

v,i:

/

M ■

./^*

u

?*'■■■

'- i:

/•

V. >

' , '

-V-.'

- ' ■ i '■

»

y«-..

r ■ ..-

v:

^

f-'^ -■

' >' •

" ' .-, ■ ■

■'■".■■'

«

<■ ;

«■

*'

•■

.■ 'S

" " 4

■ '

PI

f
?.

1

« t

»

&=•

?

<

, t

•/

*-

■'" /

t '

'

•

jm^^ 1

I

,^.^-^.

-

"va^mmif

11^

TBI,

lOWEB CAMADA

SmA

' ■ * ' '' / '"

COLLECTION DE DECISIONS

4>W

bas-Canada.

VOL. III.

B»-«««™ ®'*«ial Committee.

». V. TOBBANO

THE INDIOBS ^

V Bt 8. BBTHUKB'

^V

•5

iHontreal:

TWOT

■:¥^

u

\

;*

/

DEC 1^ las'

\

\

^ ■^.. .

-•

[

i. h

'«

y"'' r

*'..,

'i'

\ V

r.

^

•■

'■ ■■

.

)■ '

~

f.

\

■ '.»■. _

\* - . -

' i

*

" 1

■ . *

■-■

V

>,

' i^

. ...■'-■

1. \

, ■>

; ,

\.r

- . ■. ; ■ ' ■

^^

.... .. : y ; -y

!!..:..,..„

—m

' , . ■ ■■■*-

■;„''■ ' '"

■''■^'y^- ^'-

^^^^^^j^

^^^^

^^^

•

1

"

1

^.

u

'I-

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

■ ■ / ■ '» - • '

Names of Contr^utors, '.* \ '. :,,/. v.

Prcfece,./ \. ; , '.\ ^.^.. viL

Indej t<^ Cases, ../■••••■••. .• v , • • • • • ix.— xlt.

Reports of Cases, .;. I— 337.

Listybf Judgments in Appeal, ..'.....',".. 3*^8—341.

Index to principal matters in Reports, ...\, K— xvi.

'; -I . , %■ ' . ■..%.-

• - ■ . ■
I .■■■*.

" V'

,*'v

■ ■ i

■i

■7.

• *

■V.

m.'

t

ContiibutOTf.

"*o

nOBE&T MACKAT,
EOUKE ROY.
ALKXANUKR CROSS.
STRACIIAN BKTIIUNE.
OEDEON OUIMET.
PIERRK B. tAFRENAYB.
JOSEPH DOUTBE.
JOHN J. C- ABBOTT.
FREDERICK W. TORRANCE.
V1NCE8LA8 P. W. DOBION.

< M'lLLIAH r. OAIBDNEB.

HENRY BAXCBOPT.
JOHN POPHAM.
SAMUEL W. OOBMAN.
LOUIS RICARD.
ALEXANDER MORRIS.
THOMAS K. RAMSAY.
THOMAS W. AITOHIB
ALEXANDER U. LUNN.
EDWARD i, HEHMINa.
WILLUU A. fiOVEY.

/.

r

3,

WW-

■■

■ ■ ■ . i

> '

' ,'_ ■ .

, . ■ . ■

«

■1

■ .«

. •

•

i

■

.'• ■ ■

- -■'

•

1

*■". ■'

~\ . ^

i

-V'- ■ .

-

.T ■'*

" j^^ '

I

1

'f.- '

.

itil ■ , ■

;|

V

\ ■

■ rf-

'■|

n — [ —

■

■ r

1

>. .

' 1

^M

^.

•:^' . ''.

■■"■■*■

■ ■ .- . _ ■

1

-j'T^r^ J

-fl* y

V

PREFACE TO THE THIRD VQJ.UME.

^^

\

TiiK Editors in concluding tho Third Volume of the Lower Canada
JtM»8T, would again express their obligations to the Judges for their
courteous aid in the preparation and revision of tho Reports ; aad to
their professional brethren for many cases supplied and much assist-
ance given.

The motives which induced tho publication of the LowEii Canada
Jurist are to be found recorded in the Preface to the FiW Volume.
.It ,s much ^o be regretted that the OovemmeotHrfipuld have^llovvod
the continuance to the present time of a system of reporting the
decisions of the Courts, alike vexatious to the Bench, the Uar, and
the Reporters themselves.

If the aVendments long since suggested weroonly made and Jfaith-
fully iKlliered to, the publication of the Lower Canada Jurist would
no longer be necessary side by side with the Government reports
and the Bar would no longer be taxed, as thejr h^ve beeh for the last
three years, for a double series of judicial decisions.

As in former years, each case reported has the initials of the con- ^
trjbutor.' ~ . ^ ■

The number of^Qases reported in this Volume is 144.
The J^NAGiNO Editor would here express his senseof the assist-
ance he has had from his law pupil, «>. Reginald J. Plimsoll in

the rpvininn rS fV.o .».,.«-i— -_j xi ' \ .. - .

-. ^ ' .

V _ v.

1;

■Muvu VI me prooi aa

leets.

•

V ■

■■-.^ ■

*.

, -

.-

(

, *■ '

. A. ■

* ■

'^-'-

■ ■■' - ■ _

\

r

.- • -■--_.'■■

— -1^.^

. ■■-■... ■:■

x*

s.

X

■■*.... >

A.

/ '

i,-- \'

;^:

— >£^

<i^a«

^

, \

-

,

- ■*•

■ \

1 ' .fife-.

,

I • ■Br

•

-

-. >^ '■

*;/

i .

«

■ >•

;'

>'\,

'

.<•

> ^

-

V

0

/

' •\

■' •,-'

..

•

. .

.

'h ■'

■■h

r~^==^

•

'.

'' ■ ^

* —

c

\-

'■^>

A

\.

\'

V

^

/■

M r • * • - ■ ■ ' '"W" ""■■ ' •• \ \ ■'

"->, . • ' " ''.'■•

1 . ■/

-."'•• - .' ■ 1 .''■.., .

l! • ' ■ ; . 4?

' ' " V • . ' r ■ ' '

. ; , •■■>' • -, ' ■ ' • • - :

f . ' • .■ ■•

: / ] INtoEXv ■ ■ ■. '..^

TO CASES nEI'OBTBD IN TUB THIRD VOLUMK

^ .; LOWDR CANADA JUBIST.

4nd.r.on .'t .1 r,. The M.yo*|||deM„on .ml. Oltl«„, of tho Oltj of Montreal.. 'S?
. Attorn,^ G.n.r..,Pra i».,,na, Infor^in^'r,. Ik.'urt „ J.* i: i.' ^' ^' ' '; ' ' J f

Ti. LaflAmme and Darii, IntorTenlnir nartv
B^dardw. Dorlon,. ;...../....!.*. /."."^ ••• "«

Bell Ti.pignejetal, and Mllnc,Oppo,i^Vii!^*.;"'' ' > '*'

Benjamin «t. I, T..01.rk?,an4J..„ ••••• "»

Blackburn V,. Walker. .odVaVo;;;,ao;':::::: "••• • Ill

ffl.ncken.ee, AppDIlaftt, and Sharpie/, Respondent,. ■.■.■.'.'.'.*.■.';;;;;."" •-" ,!J

Bonaci„. Boni^plna, and Ou^dlack Tutor, Oppo.ant, .['^'""^^

Boolbri. The Montreal and B/town-IWlwayOomnanr r

BoudreauetaI,rs.D.mour,... ^^"^ ^"'"1""'/^ •. l»fl '

Bour.«8aT..U^dard,.... ' *■•*'•• "*

Bouthlllleryi.TuVcot,..,,!.!'.!*!'.ii.'.'.'**["| * *»

Browning t». The Brltl.h AiMrtetaPrlVndiy Socle'tV * ' " ' °®

Jruneau, Appellant, and Oharleboi.. Respondent, ^'y'-'r-^K'^ «««

a..pbeii.u..^.W^..,.„,,„J;,,^.^^^^^ JO .

Owiadlan BnUdlng Society' n. LaMontagne " '. V. ' ';^^

Carden et al, TB. Finley et al . 185,' 338

Charlotte y..Ohoutean'etal,..:: ' '**

Olfjrmont and i»fr Tg. Dlckion. '.'. * ' "^ "'

Clo.eTg.01o„ ' -^ • 305

OorporatlonoftheP^tLl^n;;;:^^^^^^^^ "»:

Come ri. Baylor, anTl^ior, Oppo«nt, ..... •••••* ^>

. ° • , ••• 167

, ^^

• • ■^ -

,. '

•

f

1

t»

, \.

,; , *,.

i» . .

\t'

* , -- 1 INDSX DO CASKS REPOBTKO.

Dawg|pit Appellant, and Belle, Respondent, ; 206

Del vecbio vs. Joseph, ^ 226

Desbarats vs. Murray, *• ■ 27

Dosjardins vst La Banque du Peuple, rjj

Deslongchalapg, pore pt al, vs. Payette dit St. Amour, 44

Donally vs. Naglo 'and McDonald, opposant, , 135

Dooley, Petitioner ys, Wardley ct al, ._ [[[ ij2

Douglas, Appellant, and Dinning, Respondent, 33

Esty et ux vs. Judd et vir, and Judd et vir., Opposants v 13

Exparte, Hart and divers, Opposants, / 4Q

" Lenoir and Lamothe ct al, Opposants, . . „ I ...... , 303

Pftibault vs, St. Louis et al, and the Richelieu Company, Plaintiffs, par reprise

d'imtance, •.....• 61

Fawcett et al, vs. "Vfaompson ct nl, .'....... 229

FergQson vs. Pow et al, \ jjT

Footner vs. Joseph, '.......■ ' 233

Fowler vs. Stirling, et al, . , .''.'.*.".".*.".*.' 103

Frotbingbam vs. Gilbert, .*.... . . . ". . t. 133

" vs. The BrockviUe and Ottawa Railway Company, and Dickinson
«ta>.T.S...... 2V

Gautbier vs. Boudrean et al., .....,'. . 64''

Girouard vs. Beaudry, , .^.; ^ ,

Gordon vs. Henry,

Gould, appellant, and the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Montreal,
respondents, ^

Gr^goire vs. Lafeririere i . .

Greenshields et al. vs. Plamondon,

Grenier, appellant, and Leprehon, respondent,

166

Grenier et vir vs. The Monarch Fire and Life Assurajnce Company, 100

Healy vs, Labellc,

197
184
240

295

45

287
325
141
284
304
42
136
115
191

/ Huston vs. The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, 269

Ingham vs. Kirkpatrick,.. ...:...

Jodoin.vs. Dubois, _

Joseph vs. Castonguay et al.,....r. ,

Kennedy vs. B^dard,

Kerr vs. Gildcrsleeve,.

Lacroix vs. Prieur, , ,

" vs. Perrfiult de Lini^re, ,,,_

^ Lambert vs. Bertrand .".....,. , ..'...";!'.'.!!.*!!!!.*.'.*;

Leblanc vs. Rousselle, .'. . . .^ ._ _ _

Lefebvre vs. Valjee,... 117

L^gfer vs. Jackson et al., , 225

Leprohon vs. Globensky, qi«

Leverson et al. vs. Cunningham k Boston, Sheriff, mu m cause, 97

" *PP*W*nts, and Boston, respondent,. 223

Lnssier et al., appellants, and Glouteney, respondent, , 299

Lynch vs. McLennan et al., and Bank of Upper Canada, T. S., 84 1 14*

" vs. Leduc & Mathien, opposant,.... , 220

McBean vs. De Bartzch, and De Bartzch et al., mit en cause, and Drummond, opp. 118

McCarthy et al., appellants,\and Hart, respondent, 29

McDonald et al. vs. Royj.....^. ^ 3Q2

HcDonell etaL vs. Collins...... \., 41

" TB. Grenier a/<MGrinleiiy and Grenieri^pposant, 7a ■

"■*'*/ , '^T ,,*^'V5' "<"' ""V^R,""»'"*:¥fSVaiF..>*'~' "''*^'"

206

226

-27

ii

44

135

72

33

73

40

........ 303

ir reprite

61

229

127

233

103

136.

)ickin8on

•....*.• 64

1

166

Montreal,

197

184

240

296

100

46

269

........ 282r

326

141

284

304 ^

....... 42

,. 136

116

191

117

225

310

97

223

299

... 84, 114o

120

nd, o^p. 118

29

•••••■• ou2
....... 41

7a •

XNDKX TO 0A8XS BBPOETJD,

190

168
306
109
337
307
> 268
186

McFarlono vs. Delisle k McKenzie et al., T. S,

" vs. Mliveau,

UftNamce vs. Himes,

Mann vs. Wilson, ».-„

Mat'tin vs. Martin,

Martineau vs. Karrigan, ,

Masson ot al. vs. Demarteau et al.,

• Mayor, Aldermen, and CitizenB of the City of Montreal, appellanU,'and'woo"d,'reVp 230
Merritt vs. Lynch,.. ;» ' ,i,»

Mitchell, petitioner, and Brown et al. defendants, .'..".'.'.'.*.' .1 .'.'.".""'*

Mog^ vs. Duprd, ,

■ Molson vs. Burroughs, and the Bank of Montreal, T. S.,. ..... .'.*.'.'.','.'.'. V.V * " ' Vs

" et al., appellants, and Burroughs, respondent,. * 22ft

Monty vs. Ruiter, ,

Moreau and vir vs. Leonard,

Morgan vs. Forsyth et al^ ,

Morrin vs. Legault dit Dcslauriers,

Moss Vs. Carmicljael and the Railroad Car Company, opposants, ..... ' laa

Neveu et im;. vs. De Bleury, "*. "

New City Gas Company of Montreal vs. MacDonell, ..... i '.'.'..I*. '

Nianentsiasa, appcjlant, and Akwirente et al., respondents,. . . .. ...... ""'"" "

Ouimet et al., appellants, anQ S6n6cal et al., respondents, ....

" vs. S(6n6cal et al., .; ""V*

Palsgrave vs. S6ndcal et al., and Prieur, gardien, petitione'rl.V.V. nl

Pearce vs. the Mayor, Aldermen, And Citlzensof the City ofMontreal '"" 1,,

Pepin vs. Christin dit St. Armour, «"",•••.....,.. 122

Pigeon, appellant, an^the Mayor, Aldermel and Citizens" o^ti.;' Oily ofMontreal "^

„. "sponaent, ,..,...,...,. '

Pinsonnault, appellant, and DuW, jespbtideht,. . .1

Provost vs. De Lesderniers, and Fi;othingham, ppposant, . .

" ". Leroux; ..v..::..;.......,

Robert et al. v8. Dorion et al.,

Robson vs. Hooker et al.,

Rochon et ux. vs. Duchene et ux., ' '"

Rogers et al. vs. Rogers,.. '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'." j ' ' ^^'

RoUand et al. vs. Loranger, ....',*.' * ' **

Russell vs. Fournier and Rivet opposant, .'. ".

Sanderson vs. Roy dit Lapens6e, and Roy dit L%ns*ie,'o"pposantV. .'.'.' " " "

Saraultvs. Ellice, |^, ' '^'^ "*'•••* ••"

School Commissioners of the Mnnicipality of the plris'h of St. pie'r^;'de SorelVs

School Commissioners of the Municipality of the Town or Borough of Willilm

„ "^'''y

Scott et al. vs. Scott et al.,..

Shaw et al., appellants, and Meikleham, respondent,. . ..."
8oci4t« de construction canadienne de Montr«5al vs. Lamontiigne"

Somers vs. Athenffium Insurance Society • '

Taylor vs. S^n^cal et al., ' ""

■•••••••

>> « • • • •

111

138

07

26

168

98

65

88
283
316

35

/.
294
176
166
321
12

249
324
119
137

189

132, ^ar

.... 5

Thomas etal. vs. The Times Vnd^VconVi^eTsiwancrQ^^^^^^ •'*•'•

Trudeauetal.v8.M«5nard, ^ ^ '' ■;••••

Trust and Loan Company of Upper Canada vs* DovlV *and *StinU^" " ■ " * 1 '''

« „ '^'^ «»u»u8 VS. uoyie, and Stanley, opposant, 138, 302

186
67
63

162
62

Walter V8. Burroughs and Burroughs, opposant,

■ »winmi4,.

>*•••■••••««,

'/

■ •'" l

.■■''■-■:- ■'■■

^.

\: '^ .' .^ v..»

*" 7 WDBx; TO oAns bkported.

■'»■.' -■ ■ k\'

WebatervB. The Grand Trunk Railway Oompanj of Canada.. ' * ' *^^'

Whitney yg.Olork,... ..^ ..*.7..'.'.'!.'.*.'.'.'."."'J""'4 S

Whitney, appellant, and Clark, respondent, *"" aia

^ Wood etal. TS. Shaw •..••.'."V:t7. .....'.'*.'.'.".*.'.'**"* {qq

Woodman vs. Letourneau, et Ed. Letoumeau, ops«Hant,. .*.'.'.*..' .' . . . ....... a?

/■■ • ■.. .■ ; ■...■/•■■■

* ' - ■ •

'■ ■ . ; ^ . ,' . " » . '

■ ' i--«. ■ *■ ' . ' '

' ': \ . ' ' ' / ■' :■

■i

y 1

If

/ ■

X

/ '

■^ „ ,J *,^^'^'%~'"^' I'f

^'*'^*„™,.„„;.*^

\

In t&f Cfrtuit Court,

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTREAL

MOXTRKAL. Uin DBCEMBEB, isas.
Coram Smith, J. ^

• \o. wi:9.

Gironard V. Deaudry.
, hLROTioN .A OBNT— Payment of Services.

. TJ..-. was an action by a law student for jGs, value of Lin services as legal
representative of Defendant during the candidature of the latter for election as
nieinb. r for this city in the Legislativa Awembly in the month of September

In support of his action Plaintiff produced an authorization written and
Mgned by Defendant, in wl^ich he style'd the t>l.intiff as his friend Mr; D68it6
l^^L^r: ,^'"?f ^r«''*^«->"«<>fhis«rvices,and hi. attendance
at.he HI; ^Iso thai Mr. Ramsay, advocate of thi^ city, who was one of ttfe
Gommiteo of Mr B.a«dry, and acting as his agent ii the engage*neW^
representatives, had prodjfeed' that he should be paiS fo. b^^sefVic^f «nd th^

Iff 'Pl2:?ff /J!f ^™ :i>i» friend," h. was dot acquMnted^thPlaiVr
tiff. Plamtiff contended, also, that it was the usage in all such caws t6 pay
the representative without any especial agreement. '

On the pari of the defence it was urged that it was necessaiy to prove a spe-
cial understanding between the D-f^Jndant and Plaintiff that th^ latter was to
be paid and the amount to be paid. That, moreover, it was evident, by the

servlo«ltwerd tobdgratoitons. "»

SMIT5, J.-This action ipu^^elis^ ; A mandate is jdways suppled
us. unless asbfici]*! airfl«rtM.«f V^ ^^:„ .V ^.j • -ii .,

. ^...uua,u lor uia^, purpose. As'tc* the pir^^ydn, of^dnti^tllat it is onlig
necessary to prove a ^uaut^n nevMt, this pr^s{i>n, is' unfeundk ' AS ia l4
ca«5 of a lawyer surng on a ru^Uam meruit,^ mAhvi case po ic^n can lie
because there is no tariff bywfalch the Cou,t oa« rej^alate'tbe d%- Some of
he ^it^sses might bo of one opinion, apj .oJ, of^another^ aa^i value of
tho«jH. e^ and It would bcJmi)^ibleno^arrif nt «ny ceit^nlT^ - A ,

.^ovejsfoiftjPlaintiff:

Action ^^ssed with costa.

(■V..V.B.) ' h -.A

v.

.'» ..

\

"■'•I .

ih

s-

k

< ■

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH/ 1858.

IN APPEAL.

PROM THE DISTRICT OF ST. PRANOfs.
XONTaEAL, 3BP SEPTEUBBBk 1888.

Coram Sir L. H. Lafontaikb, Bart, C. J.; Atlwik, J. ; Doval, J. ; C

No.M,
CHALMERS,

{Plaint\fft in Court btUne.) *

• *^ Appillakt.

ADD

, THB.MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF STANSTEAD AND SHBR-
-, BROOKE COUNTIES. - """"r.,.

• {Dtfmdanli in Court btlow,) ,

" '■ '". " ". ".I ~ .. ^..-.- -..--.-^---^ Rmpobdmm. " r

HeldUt. TtatthflBSrd Section of the Act 4,WIUta« 4,Ch. SJ. rcpectJng double In««nce. ca
hou$t» or butldingi, does not apply to insunuice* on goodt »«»«■ oif

tod. That an epdorsement on. PoUcytoued under the provWonsof wldAct. oonMntin. to th»
removal of the goods Intured.ltam the building deMHbed in the PoUcy to another building, and
■Igned by th»Seoretary:alone is binding on the CompMiy. er Duuoing. ana

This was an Appeal from a judgment rendered by the Superior Court, at
Sberbrooke, on the 27th day of March last, dismissing the Appellant's action;

The Judgment was rendered by Mr. JusricB Short, in the following words :
—"The Court cofcisidering, among other things, that at the time the goods in-
sured by the Defendants in this cause, for the loss of which the Plaintiff claims
to be indemnified by said Defendants, were destroyed, thojaid goods were also
insured by the ^tn^ Insurance Company, such last mentioned insurance having
been effected by the'J»Iaintiff without the consent in writing of said Defendants
as by law required, and without their knowledge, as is proved, by the evidence
adduced in this cause ^y the said Defendants, and that by reason of such double
insurance, the policy granted by the said Defendants to the said Plaintiff, on
which his action in this-behalf is founded, became null and void, doth maintain
the exceptions of the sai^ Defendants lastly ^pleaded in this cause, doth declare
the said policy so granted by thp said Defendants to the said Plaintiff, null and
void, and doth dismiss tha^a^n of said Plaintiff in this behalf with costs."

The action in the Court below was to recover the sum of £375,' amount of a
policy of Insuj-ance on goods, granted by the Bespondents in favpr of the Appel-
lant, and dated March 24th, 1854. The fire by which the goods were consum-
ed occurred on the 27th of August, 1855.

The -RespondentB fyled several pleas, but the pointo chiefly raised by them
and those on which the case mainly turned, were : 1st. That the goods had been
removed after the execution of the policy from the building therein described
to the building .in which they were burned, without the consent of the Bespond-
ents, — 2nd. That while the policy was in force the Appellant effected another
Insurance for £800 with the .<Etna Insurance Company, without tjie knowledge
or consent of the Bespondents. 'i

As respects the "first point, an endorsement had been made on the policy as-
follows; '*' The goods infeu^edwifhttt-hftve been- remote-^— *" - — ■- *•■"'■'' — ■

f

-i-:;;-

'm:

"Jff,^ ' w^l^ -^*B SJJ' f JT?

>:, .51 -s T?! ,

"'T-'

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1868.

) AND 8HBR.

ible InaunuioM oi^

m

#

•• about twenty rpd8 South of the block of cottages on the Depot ground at Rich- Ohl.^; '
"mond Station, where they ^re to continue insured the same as before retaoval.' ln««2; o«

(Signed,) UOLLIS SMITH, '*^' ^

Sherbrooko, July 2l8t, 1866. Secretary.

This endorsement the Respondents contended should by law have been signed
also by the President of the Company, and that not being so signed the policy
was voided. The second point turned on the interpretation to be put on the
;>prd Section of the Act 4, William 4th, Ch. 33, which is in the following word. • •

- That if any insurance on any house or building shall be made with the
Company, and with any other Insurance Company, or office, or person at the
same time, the policy^issued by the Company shall be void, unless such doable ~
Insurance shall have been agreed to by the Directors, and their consent to the
same signified by an endorsement on the policy, signed by the President and
Secretary. The Respondents contending that the expressions used necessarily
involved goods insured in buildings, and the Appellant^n the other hand conten- '
ding th^t by the common law of the land, an insurer has* right to insure in as
many offices as he likes, without giving any noUfication whatever to .the Insur-
ance Company, with which he originally insures, and that the terms of the
Statute must be strictly interpreted and applied only to the cases clearly com- -
ing within the precise meaning of the Act '

Thf> Judgmeht of the Court below was reversed. The following is the judir-
mentof the Court of Appeals :-- The Court considering that the dry goo£
crockery, hardware and groceries, the property of the above named Joha ChiO^
mei^ the Appellant in this cause, contained in a store at Richmond, In the
Township of Shipton, and mentioned i*, the Indenture oi:' Policy of Insurance
in thi3 cause fyled, were on the 27th day ofl^ngust, 1866, at Richmond afore-

8«d, wEile the said Indenture or Policy of Inijprance was in full force and effect, -
d^ttoyed^y fire, without ihe^fault or neglect of the said AppelUnt: Consider^
ing thft tho said Appellant hath well and truly performed and fulfilled all the
covenants and stipulations to he by him performed and fulfilled, in virtue of the
said Indenture or Policy of Insurance, and that the said AppeUant had a right
subsequently to the making and signing of- tho said Indenture or Policy of L' '

sura^e, to have the^said goods, crockery, hardware and groceries, insured by
the ^tna Insurance Company, without obtaining the consent of the Respond;
erito, and was not bound to give the Respondents notice of such subsequenTln-
^ir^ce: Considering further, that the indorsement on the iiaid Indenture or I
Poh^ of Insurance allowing the Appellant to remove the said dry good.. '
""iJ^Si r^?""" «•!»« groceries to « a new building about twenty rods bouA
of th^lock of cottages on the Depot ground.at Richmond StaUon," was made

i^lT3T"'*''f ^ "5'' ^'°^'"« '"^ '^'^"^^ Respondents; and consider-
ing tha tV Respondents have failed to adduce sufficient legal evidence of the
matenal allegations contained in the plea of peremptory exception in this cause

Aoliran^Z ^•V7<"'„of ^V"'"^. apd of the evidence addnc>^ tytho
"^kppetnrar^in^ sauT Appellant hiMiarighOo demand (torn the wid Res^^^^^ -
ents payment of tAe sum of £376, tie A^llant having established by evidence

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1888.

Ch.N.« thRt the value of the good, jo destroyed by flre exceeded the amount .tipulatod
I^unjn^um-ln hj. favor a. well by the Policy of Insurance, .ignfed by the Respond^Snt. a.
by the Policy, signed by the ^tn» Insurance Company; iiiifthat in conse-
^lenee in the judgment pronounced by the Court below, on the 27th day of
M«MJrl868, dismissing the acUon of the said Appellant with costs, there is
^ror:-It IS considered and adjudged by the Court here, that the said jndg-
ntent of the Court below be, anj the same is hereby reversed, annulled and
mWo void ; and the Court hero, proceeding to render the j-.dgment which the
Court below onght to have rendered, doth condemn the said Respondents lo
pay and satisfy to the said Appellant the said sum of £376 currency for the
causes in the said Appellant's declaration mentioned, with interest thereon from
tins day, and costs incurred by the toid Appellant as well In the Court below
as ,n this Court here in this behalf. ; The Honorable Mr. Justice Aylwin dis-
senting." « | ^

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dutai, J, who cited the fol-
I lowing authorities :—<i

Dunlop's Paley on Agency, p.' 161, s. 5 . 1 Bell's Com. p. 60? (1) and 478. PotUer
Mandat No. 29, also p. 888, observaUon ( 6p6rale. Ellis on Insurance p. 229, No. t and

Aylwin, J., disientiens,— ^

The Statute, under which this Insuance Company has its beingl has provided,
that If any Insurance on any hou^e or buildinff shall be made iith the Com-
. • pany. and with any other Insurance Company, or office, or persin at the same
time, the policy issued by the Company shall be void, unless such double In-
• surance shall have been «greed to by the directors, and their consent to the
. same signified by an endorsement o.^< the policy, signed by the President and
Secretary. . This enactment is a cobdition implied in every risk taken by the
Company and forma^rt of the contract with the assured. Supposing this con-
dition to have been ex^esaadja so ma^ny words, on. tl^o back of the policy, would
- It not be very hke a quibble toargue, that because, in (^rms « house or building"
was only mentioned, that the contenti of a house or building did not fall within
these words. The risk as to Insdranie on goods and chattels, is much greater
than on " house or building," the nun^iber, quantity and value, being so variable
and uncertain, and so difficult to be ascertained, of which this very case presents
a forcible example. Is it consistent With reason then, that the Insurance on a
chattel interest should be exempt frU the obligations of an Insurance, on a
house or building ? The terra " houko or building" is a larger expression, com-
prehending within it the goods and chattels contained in it, and is not in my
opinion explusive of them. The rul^ gui dicit de nno, negat de altei-if; does not
apply here, but the other and more (pertain rule ubi eadem est ratio, ibi eat idem
jus, is to jeccivo its due applicatioi^. The Legislature by the Act of the 10
Victoria, ch. 68, has placed this cohstruction upon "house or building," as' a
generic term, ^pmprehonding differUt species, and not as distinct spec'ies, by
. declaring "that the provisions and icntiraents contained in the 23d Section of
the above cited Ac\ (the Section abU cited) shall be held tn in^lud. nnd hav^

reterence to all property as well peijsonal as real.". This Legislative^^^uT

*-''

N

•■) »' I-

-^,

cited the fol-

COURT OF QUEEN'S PENCH, 1888.

tion WM pr(Wr, M the fint Act undertook to make terms and conditions forth,
contracting ^rt.ea, contrary to the u*ual cou«e of LogiHiation. it wa. right to
leave U> .mpI.c«t.on a. little a- possible. I view the last act »i only declaring
what the common law would have, ruled without it^ In the construction of
Sta utes, we find instance, in I?w«rris',nd M-ailhor de Cha««.t, of the application
of the rule which m my opinion ought> decide this case, of bringing within a
genus cases of species not expressly enumerate.!. I have viewed this case »i
one of the construction of a contract, my, opinion is the same if it be viewed in
ho light of a construction of a Statute. 1 am. therefore, of opinion to affirm
this Judgment of the Court below. ^^

Thqmat W. Ritchie^ for Appellant.

Sanborn db Brooki. for Respondents.
(8.B.) .

OhaliMn
InrartaM Oom*

judgment of Court below reversed.

IN APPEAL PHOM THE DISTEiOT OP MONTEEAI^ ■
MONTREAL, Ist DECEMBER, 1888.

Cofam Sir L. Hi Lafdntaine, Barti C.J

iSk No. 6.

* - 'SHAW, .TAL.,

Aylwin, J., Duval, J., Caron.J.

'\-'

(Defendants in the Court feelow),

\AppetlanU.

meiKleham,

(Plaintiff in the Court below),

• -Respondtnt.

I This was a.. Appeal instituted de piano from a judgment rendered by the

Superior Court at Montreal, on the 23rd day of November 1857, co^emnW

the Appellanu to pay to the Respondent the sum of £474 Os. cy ZfoZlll

the verdict of a special jury before whom the case was trieS. ThlrT S „ J

^ motion of any kind to set aside such verdict. ^ "'^

) La FoKTAiNE, J. C,-Ce pra|^s » 6t6 instruit devant un corps de iur^s dnnt

,Uverdicta6t6favorableaudemandeur; et celui-ci a ensuite Tbten t j„" "

::r^J::i^r:r^erodt""-' euco.s^ue„ciesd..n<;:r:

En cour de premiere instance, les defendeurs n'ont poirt fait motion « ^
suspendre le jugement," (in arrest of judgment), ni " p o'ur d^mlT ^^^^^^^
proces, ou pour mettre de c6t6 le verdict." (Statut de 18il ch 89 sTlT

Cet appel peut.,1 fitreadmis?" S'il est admissible, nous son^mes appeloul'
confirmer la condamnation. ou A rendre tel autre jugementlelrur t n
mi^r. .nstaaoo au.ait du tendre. U q Jt on est doSc de savTr 1 dl ) ^^
constancevensupposantm.melever^^^

..:..■■.._:... .v:,j:::>.£^^*\.;.:^^i._;j:^:- .:.:\: ■ _. . \

* ■

■H-

COURT OF QUEEN'S BEfTcn, 1868.

111-

'''^ I.

-^r

, S-

"f

u

■•IklehMn

pu rendre un autre jugement que oelu! qu'elle a ainai rendu. En d'witre. moU,
lc« ddfondenw ne faisant aucuno dea motions autori»6e« ^ar le rtaiut, pour bo
plaindro du verdict, la couf pouvait-olle «l'elle-in*n*|.r6fui.or d'acconierJLI'autro
partie sa-motion domandant jugement «ur le verdict. Si elle ne le pouvalt paa,
elle n'avait pas k rendre d'autre jugement que oelui qu'oUe a rendu, ot par eon'
sequent lea d^fondeura ne aont pas fond^s dans leur appel.

Le procia par jury en matiAre civile 6tait inconnu k notre anoiin droit. Nos
lois statutairea I'ont omprunt6 au droit anglais. L'ordonnanco de 1785 avait
fait quelques rAglomenU touchant les liatos ot lea qualiflcationa dea jur^a. Bion
qu'cllo ait gard6 lo ailence sur le mode de se plaindre de lours verdicts lea tri-
bunaui. k I'inatar do co qui ao pratiquait on Anglotarro, ont cru nianmoins
devoir donnor aux parties le pouvoir par motion en arrOt de jugement, ou pour
demandor un nodveau proems, ou pour faire mettre de c6t& le verdict Si
commo rigle g6n6>aIo, I'on ne doit pas admottre que le soul fait d'ompruntor k
un code 6tranger une diapoaition lAgialative, ontraine n^ceasairoment I'adoption
du ayalime de prociidure de ce mAme code, il n'on est pas moins vral qu'il peut
Bintrodmi;e des exceptions k cotte rigle, sanctionnfies par une longue jurispru-
dence, aurtout lorsque cotte sanction a eu pour olle I'appul do quolquea diapo-
aitions 8tetut5llre^ introductivos de cetto procedure 6trang6re applicable A d'au-
troB parties du procia par jury. Cost ainsi que dans «a 18e seci,tion, I'ordon-
nance de4786 portait que lea juris aoraient choisis deslistes faites par le Sh6rif
.«dela mfemomaniiro^tsouB lea mfimos r6gIo8 que lea juria ap^ciaux soBt
jshoiBis dans les cours do justice en Angloterro; " c'eat encore ainfli que la 20e
section do la m6me ordonnance disait "que touteff recusations et exceptions
centre lea listos, ou contre quelque jur6 particulior qui y sera montidnn6, seront
faitos et jMgies, c6ur tonanto, conform6ment aux lois d'Angleterre."

Enfin, ce que la jurisprudence des tribupaux canadiens avait introduit comme
80 rattachant nfeceasairement au syst^me du proems par juris, a roju la sanction

do la Ligislaturo par notre statut de 1861, chap. 89, sect. 4, qui, apris avoir dit
qu un tol procis pourrait avoir lieu dans les seances hobdomadaires do la cour
8up6neuro, ajoute : « pourvft qu'aucuuo motion pour suspendro lo jugement,
ou pour demandor un nouvoau proems, ou pour mettre de c6t6 un verdict, ne
sera entendue ou d6termin6o par mpins do tFoi& jugea."

Apres avoir parcourupreaque t<ius nos livroa anglais sur la matiAro, jo n'af
\ pu dicouvrir aucun cas od les tribun^ux aient de leur tJropre mouvement and-

/ *°*\"°^«'<^'Ctde jury, lorsque la dcmando n'on avait pas 6t6faite par I'uno des

. ^ partios. ,11 mo somblo biep 6tabli quo I'initiativo dos parties 6tait nicessaire

pour attaquer le verdict, dans la jurisprudence anglaiso'existant lors de I'intro-

^ . duction du proems par juris en Canada, initiative qui a continu6 d'etre oxig6

juaquAcejour. AnciennomenVlo mode do se pourvoir centre un verdict 6tait

parla.vo.edun«r,Vo/(,ttam<. A ce mode a 6t6 8ubstitu6 lo rocours par

... «o<«>», comme itant plus exp6ditifetmoinrdiBpendioux. U writ of attaint

6ta.t poursum par la partie elle-m6mo,lorsqu'olle croyait avoir A 80 plaindre

- f " ^^'^'f ^« «"••'. t«°»b6 en ddsuitude depuis bien longtemps, a 6t6 formel'-

lement abrog6 par lo atfltut imi ' • ' - -

''■■;■
,/>.'

that It sbaU not be lawful for the king, or any one on hia behalf; or for^ny

--.I

:4

Cd^RT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 18A8.

party or parties in any omo whatMovtr, to oommenoo or proi«out« any writ of ihM
atUini against an>>ry or juror, for the verdict by them given, or again.t the M..I1IW
party-or parties who aball have judgment upon such vordict ; Ac, Ac " L'ini-
tiativeappartenaitdonoiklapartie,etnonauxjuge.. Pourquol oeux-oi wraient-
il« iDterviinu., ii la partie qui avait .uccomb* no m plaign.H pw I Depuia que
0 mode de w pourvoir contro un verdict a 6U> chang6, I'on voit, dan. tou. le. "
iivre. anglai., que c'eit .ur motion, pitition ou apptiealion de la partie • ce.
troi. mot. .e rolrouvont partout. II faut que oette demande .oit formulae dan.
un d6lai de quatre jour.; ou.l, dan.de. circon.tanco. particuiiAre., I'onpermot ''
quelque fo.. k la partie de la pr^wntor aprd. ce d6lai, faut-il toujour, que ce
«o.t avant le jugement homologatif du verdict. Le m6me riglement e.iate iel.
L art.c^ 70 et I'article 77 de. rAgle. de pratique de la cour .u^rieure flxent lea .
d6l«u dan. Ie«,uel. doivent 6tro faito. le. motion, pour nouveau proci,, ou «» .
artit de jugemmt, landi. que le 76e ne permet de demandor jugement .ur le
verdict qu'apri. ['expiration de ce d6lai.
Pour justifior davantage moQ asuertion que ce n'est que .ur motion de la

6gu,Ialive : 0 e.t celie que I'on trouve dan. la 2e wction du Statdt ImpeVial. 8e

Geo.4 chap 106 Dan. une action «)umi.e Aunjury aux cour. appel6e.

Court, of Great Sewion." dan. le pay. de Galley il e.t permi. k la partie

m6contente du verdict, de .'adre«er par motion k aocune de. cour. da banc de - '"

Ja Reme, de. plaidoyem commun. ou de I'Eohiquier .i6ge«nt in Banco, " for a

rule to .how cause why a new trial of .uch action .hould not be granted or *

non.uit net aside and a new trial granted, or a verdict entered, for the Plaintiff

or defendant, or a non.uit entered, as the case may bo, in the eame manner a,

hath beenutually heretofore done in action, depending in the said court,, ai^

/r«d a niBi priu. before any Judge of Aeeize, by virtue of any record i«uino

. out of the md courts; and that tl»ereupon it .hall and may be lawful for the'

6a.d courto to gr^i^t such rule, ^nd proceed to hear and determine the merits of

ihi^^^me,tn, uch manner aud form a, hath been heretofore done inaction, de-

pending *» the said last mention^ courts, and tried as aforesaid rfc'»

^ Jo pourram encore, .ur le m6me .ujet, en appeler k quelque. disposition, de

tebHt d? ^« ^««*;«'»«P-/25,appel6 " Common l.W p^cedureacV lequel
6tabht dcs cour. d appel pour les fin. de cette loL (Sect be). " In every rule
Nu« for ..new trial or to enter a verdict or non.uUe g«>unds upon whth
such ruje .hall have been granted shall be shortly stated therein,"^ccL33)

th^tri!lTr ';''!'%*'"*''* '*"^'****'" »°»™i'«PO'» » point reserved at
the tnal, ,f the rule to show cause be refused or granted and thou discharged
or madeabsolute, the party decided against may appeal (Sect. 84). "Zu
cas^a of motions for a 'new trial upon the ground thT th judge has not r^l^ '
accordmg to law, if the rule to show cause be refused, or f Tantedt ZTn

IvoTfr rf *^'"^^*'^ party decided againsl may f^^Sfpl^^
anyone of the Judges dissent from tie rule-being refused, Ac, A^4ect 35)

I ;

given in

Ui* court bdow~&c;»*-(8Bet.~iT)7 .
Toutecet^gi^tion estune nionnaissance de U n^cessiid quMl y avait

/■•»

If!

It

h

■Iww'
MaUkium.

COURT OF QUEEN'SJlfeKeif, 18fl8.

«•

■)

wp.r»v«,.t de «, pourvoir p.r motion contre kmdiot pour.o «)uitr.i«. A U

.ur c pent U 00 «,ot.o„ du .utut Imperial, 4e ot fie Ouil. 4. cH. M, concur-
n«nM« corat6 PHlttin de Lancwtor. /

U motion doit 6tro faito daru. h« d6Iai« fl,6^ <|u moin. avant juircment ..r
L mol^l'L " " *" ;«K"«"i»o„'. digest by Fi.her, p. 2.180) for a deftndant
rZ ! p" rri""' f "'J"J«'"«"» f""- the Plaintiff n.n oUtante rerodioto.
Tierce m. Reid, 6 M. and G. 1 ; 6 Scott, N. II 1010 "

. Notre .Utut do 1861 reconnait A la partie m*co„t"ento. troi. voie, d'atta.,««r

• cour dan« laquelle le verdict a 6ld rendu, ot non k cette cour. II e.t libro 4

oe droit, olio do.t Atre con.6e y rononcer, ot par con.«quent aequieacer au rer-

^^.Hint ;o vordict, n'oxc6do pas co verdict, qu'au conlraire il y e.t en tout confor-
ni6, la partie am., oondamnAe e»t .ad. grief dovant cette cour. Elle ne pout pas
noua d,ro on auppoHanl m6.ne que le verdict efttpu 6tro »tt«qu6. que la cour do
p ern.6re m.Unce lu » refu.6 co qu'ello avoit droit d'obtonir. pui-qu'olle m«me
. .eat abatenue do le lui d^mander. Or la demaide qu'elle pouvait bi Wro Z^

C6t* lo veMict. Aucune do cos demandes n'ayant 6t6 faito 4 la courdopremiAro
matance, on ne pout pan dire que coUo cour eftt dil rondre un autre jugeinent nue
celu. dont est appel. Ello n'a dono pas ma! jug6. ^ ^

II me somblor6«ilter do la jurisprudence anrflaiseqyo lo dAfaut do motion
poaattaquerle verdict d,nsled6l«iM,^quiviiut 4 un acquiescement 4 co
verdict Sur co point, il me semble qu'il ^'y aurait pas do doute dan. le. ,>*i„.

2 It T" T. "'*"'"• " ^ "^'"''''' '" P*'*'« «•"?«'»« aoquioscomont
au.acte. do procedure otaux jugemon.s, lorsqu'elle laisse 6coulor les d6ll
accord6s pour les attaqucr." Bioche. au mot " acquiescement". No. 48.

Do la part du demandeur, il y a eu acquiescement expr6s au verdict par .a ■
."ir T.' J^^"-";"^ 'd^ >« P«r.tde. dAfendeurs, acquiescement tacito, on
v«X 1 "■' "^ '""■■ •*« P'««"^'-« 'n«tanco, aucuno motion contre le
vor^jct,^ on ronon^^ant par 14 4 obtenir un noupeau precis (, new trial), nouveau
proc6s qui fait Av.dommont I'objot de lour appel. Des trois mottns qu'il" -
avaient la facult6 do fairo, ils auraient pu choisir pour la premidi% cellq «.arr^<
aejugement. II. auraient pu succombor sur cetto motion, alors c'eAt 6t6 de
. leur part, iflftme dahs le droit anglais, un ijcquiescoment au verdict : cftr c'est
une regie g6n6rale de co droit « that after an unsucce^ful motion in arrest ^f
judgment, a party is not at liberty to mo\e for a new trial, even wit/nn the first
four days of term ; forby moving to arrest the judgment, heaffirms the verdict

396?" A .ff;:' ' ""' '' "; '^' ' ' ^: «' ^- "^' (°-»-'* Digest, p.
3065, ArchboUs common law practice, 1853, p. 169). S'il devait y avoir

acquiescement dans ce cas de la part des d6fendeurs, 4 plus forte raison dovaii--

il y avoir acquiescement do leur part, lorsqu'ils ne pr6sentaient aucune des

l^otions quo la loi leur permettait do fairo. Un d6fendeur pcut avof, H» h.„n..

-raisomr puur ne pu objocter 4 I'iiomologation d'un verdlVt wnX <»nui lui^

COURT OP QUKEN'B BENCH, IftMdg

, ch. 02, concor-

.11

II Mt rwl qufl, dant le om tctuol, l« ranliot Mt pour U roontunt <le U d«mRnd« ;

timii, dant uii autro caa, le »or.lict pparrait 6tro pour uno •unimo moindro <|ue

• all* d«inaDd«e, ot 6tro n^anmoina encont atta<|uabl« au point d'awuror U

•uccAa diuno motion pour uii nouToau procAa. Le dAfendeur, quoique mAcon-

tent du verdict, pout n«anmoin>« Iroiiver qu'il eat do aon int6r6t do ne paa Tatta-

quer, et it a'abatient do fairo la domande d'un nouveau procAa. 8outiondr».t-on

qu'en pareil ona, le jngo appel6, aur U demande de I'autre partle, 4 hoinoloffuer

» lo Terdict, dovra t'abatenir n6anmoina de le fairo, a'il eat d'avia que le rerdlct

t«t juateniont atUquable. et qu'un nouveau procAa aurait 6th par Uii accord*

' 1. L .^"'^ 6t6 demand* I Le jugo arrAterait done de .on propre mouvoment

eflet d un verdict, nonobatant Pacqulcwiement dea partiea, eiprda do la pari de

I une qui demando jug«me..t, et tacite de la part de I'autre qui, pour dea r»lK>n.

• out one doit 6tro muI le juge, a'abatient de recourrir «ux voiea que la loilui

•ionno d'Httnquer lo verdict I

uJr^^r^''"\T t'^'''\V"r'»« ^' »°«di'« qnel jugement, ^n auppoaant
qud pftt leur 6tro favorable, ila -'attendaiont 4 obtenir aur le prfiaent appol.

Vou.pourroV;„o.«on^il..ugg6r6..Mnfirmerpurementet.in,pLentlejI^^
ment bomologat.f du verdict ;,vou. pourrez poat-6tre alier plu. loin, et accorder
nn nouveau proci^r c W4-diro que nou. pourrion. prendre anr nou. de leu
accorder. co quo le tribunal de premliire instance n'a pa. pu leur accorder

vtt IV •?'.'"" "" Pouvoirdeoe premier tribunal d'ordonner dana

lo tat de la cau.o d nW paa en notre poqvoir de I'ordonner. D'un autre

dan. 6tat de la cauae, tol qu'elle lui a 6t6 pr^sent^ll Mai. I'on nou. dit ; . "
vou .nflrqjp, purement et .implement. la partie cbntre laquelle le verdict a 6tV
rendu, demanderaunno«..a«;«^,(. new tfr«l,)ou bien.ce nouvealp^^LZ
demand* par ^ advemairo, cW^dri^ la partie en favour de laquelt ver
diet aura 6t6 am., rendu. II M reconnal.re que oe .erait faire liaux parlie.
uno position qui n'a 6t6 d.mand^e ni «,llicit«e 'par I'uno ou par I'.btr en cour
do premiere inaUnce. Quelle rai.on 7 aurait-il done pour ce tribu ll dlter-
v nir en pared oai, pour faire au, partie. une telle ^.ition concrelr g ff
l^ir *"''""«• ^•''" certainement II mb .emble qu'acc6der A une t^
propoeitfon, CO .erait mAconnaltre le. limite. do notre juri«liction oni ne non.

tZT7^^ T '"'' "'""'"^ ^° '^'^'^' premiere in.taL. Dan. oe
ilt? ^"' T^"" *" *PP*'' ^"« '« >««'"«»♦ ^omologatif du verdict Jit
nfirm6 purement et .implement, bien qu'aucune motion n'ait 6t6 faUp^
UtUquer quelle position fait^n a«x parUe., .urtout 4 celle en faveurde
hTI ^T' •"' '''^''' * *'* "■""■ '«"^» ' !-• "otion qui a donn6
ve" iol'ouS TT V" P*'* '' •''"''"*• •«» acqnie«.ment formel a«

pour attestor wn aoquiesoei

IhMV
Molkl^iiMi.

ce jugemenl. n'eet^il paa n^anmoin. toujour. U
int? Pourra-t-il,on presence de cet acquiescement,

K

■v'.

%si^^

'?

1 ,'l

■V- J

J

i \

'I.

;

10

'^

COURT or QUEEN'S BBNCn, 1088.

#

■kj* d«m«iKlor quo l« urdlot mU mU ^ n««nt f Hon HclvcrMir*. qni trouv«n.qit1i

«.<kM»m. do «on int<\rAl .lo m pi^ iktmml«t un iMUMdu ^^rorj,, ,,„oJ,|uo tnArontcnt _
Terdiot,ViiUon«|jlluji^pgkm« doJMro ooUo dflm«ndo,iM* p<iurr»t.il ptu liii oppHMp
ort •cquiMoomont, pufxltii) cnt <io<|ui«iic«Hn«nt un« niin donnd doit lui proflter
eooime tout Kutre KO(|uiMo«m«nt do la purt d'un iidrorMiro f

8iir U <iuMtl<>ii du riii«lniifiiibilit« <lo I'.ppol dan* un ciw commc flolulol, Im
•utorit^Htiiivnnto* iiont dAoi»ivut. On Km trouvo dnn> loa mpport. d«a caurm
doVant U CohhH Pri»4, p«r Afoort, lur den m>|)^« '^k <-oloni..ii.

Vol. 3, p. p. 87 «t luiv : JtamdM, »PliklMpn|M MRdowdiw ot Autroa
illtim«^■ur un »pt)eld« Bomba;,, 7 f6v. l|W*R^lf»p.i»l do«a not, howovoi-,
•itond to tbo flnding of .jury upop -»lo,JjJt,cU.dTroin the equity .ido of
th« court; no motion for. new iyj»lhJ|ig||(||, made, nvr eiocptiont taken
*o '•'« mwtor'" report fo|lide|nthe T«rdkjti in luflh iwue^" Mr. Itaron
Parke dit: 'Mn the preauilNpimie appellant motining to ohjeot to tht
flnding of the court on the facta, ahoujd Immtu applied to the equity aide for • '
new trial, aa a verdict againal evidence ; and having brought all the evidence
before the court, the Vufuaal of a now trial and conaequont adoption of the
flnding, aa one of tho ground* for a decree, would then have been the aubjoct
of appeal ; and the propriety of the deoiaion on the facta would be conaidoced
and decided in a court of appeal ....

" Aa thoro haa been no application for a now trial in thia oaae, l|^aoU
proved on tho iaauca, and the propriety of the finding upon it, caqnot i^ be
brought under our review .4.. *

lb; p. p. 180 et auiv. : tn Jt» John Bfnir, do TMo do Tobago ; 8 d«c. I8n9 :
8ur action dn pAtitionnaire pour atwaut ot faux emprisonrtomont, il avait obtenu
centre lea d6fondouni un verdict pour £116 de dommag.m. Lea d^ifendeurs
avaient fait motion to letatidt the verdict, mala la cour6tant part«g«o d'opinion,
. U n'y out pas do jugomont aur la motion. Plus tard le p6titionnairo fit motion
pour jugeraent, " when the court, being divided in opinion, the following
minuto waa entered : "The court divided, «o that there waa no order made."
No motion waa made by tho defendants in arroat of judgment."

A la suite de quelquea autres incidont^ le demandeur priaento aa petition A
Sa Majestfcen Consoil, priant qu'il f6t ordonn* " that judgment might foith-
with be Mg||JriJtaJ^«ntored upon ,the saU verdict, and execution issued
thereon.'V^^n^AMaC^ > -,^^^ .■rf, w

" ^""JHlBfl^ " Uponl^facta of the case, there is no doubt the
judges.hTiVBiraiie wrong. The petitioner brought an action of assault in the .
^ court of Common Pleas below, and recovered largo damages £11 6 ; the defen- •
dant applied for ^ new trial. It appears to be tho practice o{ the court of
Common Pleas, in Tobatfo, that (instead of moving a aide-bar rub for jtldg-
ment, as here,) it is a motion in open court, by the party applying to th« conrt •
but one would suppose that such a motiop. would be granted as of cotiritf, onlesa
there was a motion in arrest of judgment, and we have no diffioalty in saying ^
the judges ought to have granted that motion. They had no right to eonaider
the propriety of the verdict. AOer verdict, the motipn to enter np judgmegi i«

-rfflOHorofoourse, and that motion ought to have been mnted imi^ th^re
was some reason for it." ^

, *

•yggCT*""*" ^^"Tt-sjjw-r" '

^

COURT OF QU«Wi' BENCH, 1808.

11

tn>uv«r».qu'il «Mt '*

-il pM III! opfMMMr *%
doit lul prufltur

mm* Ofltui-ci, Im
port* (J«« cAiiM*
I.

iwdRH at Kiitr«a
ie« not, how«v«r, '
0 equity tiiJe of
s«<!©ptioni taken
M." Mr. Ilftfon

0 object to the
luity lide for t,'^
all the evidonoo
adoption of tho
oon the niibjuot

1 b« conaidoced

oaae,
oaqnot

t now

hota
b«

; 8d6c. 1890:
t, il avail obtenu

Lea d^fendeura

tag^o d 'opinion,

inairo fit motion

, the following

t> order made."
»»

ta aa petition k
nt might forth -
xeoution iaaued

I no doubt the,
asaault in the
15 ; thodefcen-
>f the court of
rul« for jttdg-
ig ta th« court ;
}fcotin«,QnIeM
•Ity in saying
iht to eonndtr
np jndgine^jUa—
d, unleas there

'■■Hi

saai an

I >uik.<>f the
-u iwie or
ici #tho ju

OMHBe II n'y aralt paa d« j04fMtiak r»j»pni M la petition, mm oonoli'ulona
Be fur«nl pu accor.|#«,. " All w« can do*', Hj.>uta le llaron I'arko, •' la to
recdflnwend the p«tillon«t again Ui apply u, the j\id^ea of the Common Pleaa,
an.I to intiiiiat« ^ Uhmh that it i« the opinion of tlwir LorUahlpa aittlng here, at
Her M^jeaty'. Jiijci«| Oommitt«« of Privy Cmmml. that, /Am bginff no fnotion
in amtt qfjud^mmfAt ia the bouwden duty ofitt|@Q«rl to give, jadgmoat for
the ridntiflT ^^m

• n. Vol. d, p. p. 4 10 i aufv : TUmwh, apj)elant.^tre Dmt «t aiHPM, dan*
un ap|>el dMn jugem«nt d« la Cour HuprAm* de IfoA^ Kmp aiir W vefdiol
d'un jury,juin 18M ; " Htid, th»taath<« eivgliah pra<-'«.^ prevailed at O^
Kong, the allowanc« of aqoh appeal waa irregdkr, beinjr 'n effect, an «^aL
againat tiie vardiot of a jury, and that tho propafcourae would havejien lb
hare moved the court below for a new trlayilid toM» appMled ■mKi't th«
J^djWPnt r«fti»ing BHCh motion." ^, VW '^.. A

Sir John I'atteMW, en pronon^ant le jnMm«nt,\»e, »tre%tr«» clnMiea : p.
442 ; •• what ia it tliat ia appealed again»t/ It la tli-- !^-!inrt«nt o< the court
•Now, the judgment «r tho court ia manifoatly a righf
tfce vertlict reroaina. If the Verdict aUnda, no pther
and, therefore, tlie judf meitt which ia given by Uid jnd;
aot of the court, and it m only againat an act of the coh.
There ia no other act of the court, the verdict ia not the .
verdict ia Uie act of the|Bry, and I do not fiiMi any *Uor«
Ihat any thing ia aaid about an appeal againiit the verdict «»«„ j„ry „ vn,
intervening atop had tukien place which I before alluded***, namely, that
motion bad been made for eetting aaide the verdict and giwtting a new trial,
then the refusal to do ao o'h the part of the court, would haw. been an act of
the court, and there would liave be<in an appeal agaji^at that «* 5 but I cannot
•ee any where upon tho fao« of theae proceedinga, or on the fa«|k which ar«
brdught before ua, how theM ia any «p,H)al againat any act of ih#|ourt, other-
v»;«o than agamat a judgmoat of i\6 court ; then, if that bo ao, what ia this .
appeal f Why, it ia nothing more nor loaa than an application for a jiew trial :
not an appeal againat an act oflhe court, Ijut an application to have the verdict of
the jury act aaide, and a new trial granted. ..... p. 446, " we think, therefore.

Ibat we cannot encourage auclr a proceeding, ahd that it would be very deair- •
able to have it fully understood that noauch application can be made by way
of appeal to Her Majeaty in Owncil, to aet aaide a ^ict, and to have a new
tnalunleaa there haa been a previoua application madl to thi Court in which
the nal took phice, to have the verdict aet aaide and a new trial granted, on "
whatever grounda that motion mijght proceed." ^ » •

Jetrouve dans lea "'Condenae* ReporU of Louiaiana vol. 1, p. 802," un caa
analogue 4 celuiH^i. Lesyst^medeyro^^apar jury a6t6introduitd«nalaLouMi..
ne. i.d, comme ici, une cauae pent a'initruire devantle juge avcc raseia&nce
ou .anal aaauitancod'un jury; otilyaappel. Dana la cau«i de Morgan et Bell,
en 1817, un verdict avait 6t« rendu en favenr du demandeor. Le^fendeur in-'

RkMV

MiUbliaah

- -1

r^

\

iiiont, ao'long

rjiont can be given,'

<>ar-M to be the only

aat an ap

!• court ; tb«

ordinancea (1)

ury. If that

^

. 'I:

^

<fi'

"^^

(1) OtdhuutoM floaatitatiai

SnpiMBe Court at Hong JS||.

-yr .

. /

COURT OF QUEEN'S ^ENCH, 1859.

' Slukw
UtUOeliim

V-

teijeta. appel. II n'arait pas fait de motion pour nomeau proc's,. Sur I'appcl il
. invoqua quatre moyons, doui le Becond 6.ait " that the Plaintift'e counsel handed
llV / 7 " '^™»I». by 'tich the verdict was ropdered ; they filling up blank.
M for lie sums." Ce .noyen fut d6clar6 inadmissible en appel. U juge
Mart.n d.t a cette occasion, « we think that any misconduct of the counsel or
of the jury especially of the kind complained ot; ought to be taken advantage
6f by a mo|^on for a new trial." *

; ■ Les appelanU out invo<Ju6 la cause de YAsiiranee et McOillivray, dont le juce-
ment en premiere instance a 6t6 confirms p^r cette courle 1 juillet 1867. lis
ont tort de.pr6tendro que cette cause form^ un pr6c6dent en leur faveur. La
majontjde cette cour ^tant d'avis de cobfirmer le jugement sur le mfirile
mfime de la contestation, il 6tait pour ainsi dire indifferent que les juges assi-
gnassent tous les autres motifs qu'il pouvait y avoir d'arriver 4 la m*me conclu.
Bion, et que pouvait prfisenter l'6tat de la proc6dure. Mais il n'en est pas ainsi
dans la prSsente caifte. Les juges de c<?tte Cour sont d'opinion que le verdict
du jftry aura,t,dft 6tre en faveur des appelante, et que, s'ils eftssent fait en .cour
de premiere instance iHie motion pour faire rejeter le verdict et obtenir un nouveau
proems, cette motion AuFait dfi leur Hre accordSe. N'ayant pas fait une ielle
motion, ,1s doivent en sufir les consequences. Nous n'avons pi^ d'alternative ;
Hnousfautn6ces8airememconfirmerle jugement

The judgment of the Superior Court was accordingly confirmed, Atlwibt J
dissenting. , > » •»

i?o..<fcJfo„*, for Appellants. '"^S"""* *>f *»>« Co"* b^'ow confirmed.
Grow <* ^Hcro^, for Respondent. ' ^^■

f;4.

il

COUR SUPERIEURE, 1867.

MONl^RffAL, 26 MiUS 1867.

Corom Smitb, J., C. MoNDKiKT, J., Badout, J.

No.|M.

SAISINE HERBDITAIRB—DELI^ANOB DB LEGS
'"•J^!'""^ "»•-» "«- «-*-«*'» «t fl a-Wne daoumde en d«Ivn«ce deleg. n'e.t ««-

V. Jrrr ^"""^'o!? T*^" ''''"°' ""*''""'^' domiciWr^ St-Eustache, y est d6.
c6d6^*uvers^20 Janvier 1822, laissam deur^km issus de son marine
,»veo Genevieve Decousse, savoir : Etienne et Marie-H6ldne Dorion

frroff*"^ ?*"f ^'"'° ***'P^''* "°« *«*'°° «" p6tition d'h6r6dil6
contt* Charles Donon, leur oncle, et centre Horatio Gates et NathanieWone.
alWguant qu',1. 6ta.ent tous tro^a possession de^ biens composant 1. succeil
Bion de leur p^re. *' -^'

.n^''^'*!^''^**" f ""^^ * ""^ *"*'*^" •!"« J'^^J"*" I^o™» J«i avait I6gu6
ton. ses bm»^u ,^n testament olographe en date du 9 Mars 18J1. .

* *_^ WW d<cMoat <»ntnir« J^fff |^

■"SF.T '••/

:■€-

COUB SUPERIEURE, 1887.

IS

Les donx autresD^fendeurs, Gates et Jones, ont all6gu6 qw Jacques Dorion,
par son testament |[)lograpbo du 9 Mare 1821, le mfime que celui invoquA par.
Charles Dorion, lui avaif I6gu6 tons ses biens ot les avaient nomm^s ses exAcu-
teurs testamentaires. "

Les Deraaildeurs ont produit des r^ponscs g6n6rales et fait entendre quelques
t6moins pour prouver que les Dfifendeurs 6taient en possession des bieM^o la
succession. ^'^Bk

Le 10- Jiiin 1823, la Cour du Banc du Roi, par nn jugement pr61imi^e, a
ordonn6 aux Defendeurs Gates et Jon6s de rendre compte de ce qu'ils avaient
ea leur possession appartenant 4 la siiccession de Jacques Dorion. \

Le 7 Octobre 1823, Gates et Jones ont rendu un compte, dans lequeUfh oat

port6 la recette 4 £8,367 16s lOd, la ddpense k £210 14s 8d,,«t la reprised

, £7,861 128 6d, laissant une balance de £295 8s 8d qu'ils devaient & la sucoe^

sion, cette somme provenant de la vente des meubles et effets mobiliers du dit

Jacques Dorion. .; -

Lors de lUudition snr le m6rite de la cause, lis Appelants ont pr6tendu lo.
Que le testament produit par les Dfefeodeurs, n'6tait pas prouv6; 2a Qu'en *
supposant qu'il le fat, il 6tait inintelligible et qu'il devait 6tre consid6r6 comme
non avenu; 3o. Que le D6fendeur. Charles Dorion, n'ayant jamids obtenu d6- *
livrance du legs qu'il invoquait, il Stait, i tout SvSnement, tenude rendre aux
Demandeurs, hdritiers du Testateur, Jes biens de la succession ave« toort«^
fruits et revenns qu'il en avait ^erjus, sauf i lui ensuite k demander la d6li- "^
mnce de son legs ; 4o. Que ce legs, dans tousles cas, ne pouvaits'6tendre qu'i
I'usufruit des sommes d'argent trouv6es en la possession du Testateur lora de son
d6cds et 4,ayufruit de ses immeubles et non & ses meubleset A ses dettesj
actives qui constituaient la plus erande partie des biens de sa succession. (On)
trouvera k la page 21 une copie ekaote du testament produit par les ddfendeuraj/
Appendic§A.) '

Nonobstant les obj^ptions souley6es, par les Appelants, la Cour du Banc de
Roi, par son Jugement"du 20 Avril 1824, a adjilg6 que le dit Chari^Dorioj
avait en yertu de ce testament droit de retenir, et de possider ^ retain Aol
and:po8sets) sous les restrictions y contenues, les immeubles du dit Jaco
Dorion qiii avait aussi dispos6 de rint6r6t de son argent en feveur du dit CI
les Dorion et de ses enfans ; mais que dans ce legs d'argcAt devait 6tre coMi
npn seulement I'argent trouv6 en la, possession du Testateur lors de son d^^o,

m mais encore toutes les sommes de deniers 6num6r6e8 dans le jugemen?qui
avaient 6t6 plac6es k int6r6t, et dont il devait jouir sa vie durant et quit 4
tons les autres meubles, dettes et effets qui appartenaient au Testateur oiTqm
lui 6taient diis lors de son dfie^s et dont le dit ChariJs Dbrioan'avait pL dis-
pos6par8on testament, il a ^6 adjug6 qu'ils appartJnaient de droit aufDe-
mandeursj Etienne Dorion et Marie.]H6I^ne Dorion, U. la Cour ordoija aux

> D6fendeurs de les Ifeur rendre ainsi que tow les docOments, papiers, 6crits et
pieces jnstificatives ayant rapport il ces meubles, de^^ et effets qu'ils avaient'
en leur possession, et adjugeant sur le compte rend^ par les D6fendeurs Gates'
^t Jones. """ "--^ ' ' • • - -

RolNrt '*

Vfc •

Dorioa.

f
A.

i

h^

iti»^<»-j£a9g~6B 8^-qtt'il8"»vaient-f ptre Ifldrr

/ ^ains, en leur quality d'exficutettrs testamentaires, serait pay6e aux Demandeurs

M

Bobert

VI.

Dorion.

«..

X

A

ot enfin il fut
cejngcment,

. -"N-'

GOtJR SUPERIEURE, 1857.

k

-±S5^H£^

„ 1- J. , — T-"- -....W.I1, vuuuuruB aaDB cette CADM

ehfans m^le T^Il ^ •'" - ^^''-'^^ Morion ^t la vie de se.

. .» C0..id6r.li„„ dti S?iS!?/ . J«q"« Doric, nepouvil «t« ,*.' ;
pendiceD.,p.ge2j "^ 0. jugemem ,» i„„„ ^„, ,,^_ .

i>orio„j'u„d«Er»lrr°r.r°°- p<'»''"»'«'P"««dAsE.,eu« •

^galemflnt d6ctd6» efr^wra reprt-

•X

^

'I

COUR SUPERIEURE, 186Y.

Iff

r

MDtantft ont 6t6 assignds k reprendre riiutance ot ont 6t6 condamn^si lo fa^re •
par divers jiigements.

Cesincidente ont longtemps retardfi iant la demand^ en d6claration de juge-
oient comtnun que la demande principale.

EnEn toutes les difficult^s f^ltant rfu dec^s ou du changement d'dfat de>
parties ayant 6t6 surmont^es, labi^ij/e a 6t6 plaid6e devant la Coqr Sup6rieuro
k, Montr6d, qui a rendu, lo 20 Mars 1867, le jug'ement suivant: . - ..-

-^ Smith, J.— This is a case which has been for a long timeiii litigation, for
.It stands now in the same position as it did in the yeaj, 1822, with the
exception only of reprises oTinstances which have taken place since th^t time.
The action was brought by Etienne, Marie and H616ne Dorion, as Heirs-at-law
of Jacques Dorion, in his lifetime a merchant of St. Eustache, against Charles
Dorion, Nathaniel Jones ^ and Horatio Gates, the d^laration alleging 'that
the Defendants had taken possession of theveetate of the deceased Jacques
Dorion, who died in 1821, without any legal authority for "so doing.
Jones and Gates set up, iu ^efense to the acfion, an olograph will of the deceas-
ed, bequeathing his estate t^ his brother Charles and his children, and appointing
them the executors. Chaises Dorion also sets up the will, and pleads ^ bequest
to himself and his childreR of the whole estate. The plaintiffs answer generally-'
that It IS not true. The case was submitted for Judgment in 1822, and-the Judg-
ment which the Court at Montreal then rendered was in 1824 reversed by the
Court of Appeals at Quebec It then went to the Privy Council, rfndUere both "
the former judgments were reversed and the case sent back in order that the
children of Charles Dorion ipight be called in, as being interested in4he estate
and that the Judgment to be rendered should be common to tl\em. This has'
been accordingly done. The Plaintiffs cont«^ that as hteirs-at-law they are
seized of the estate and they demand an account. The Defendants on their
side say that they are the uriiversalOggatces, and are legally in possession and
that no account is due. It is a question of title. At the argument it was con-
tended that the will was bad, as being unintelligible, but this pretention was
abandoned. Secondly, it was contended that the legacy was of the usufruct onlv
»nd not en propriiU. The Defeftdants answei that it was a universal legacy, and
that It made no difference, so far <is this action was concerned, whether it was"
the^usufrucjonly or en propriite. On' examination of the will, we find that it
embraces the entire succession except the meuUes et efets. The Testator be-
queaths the jouissance de ses fonds et les revenus de torn ses argents to Charles
Donon and to his children bearing the name of Dorion. Was this a univ A
legacy? I think it .^ I* was contended by the Plaintiffs that the estate '
could not pass without d<5/,Wa«.erfe%,. I think,however, the question is one
merely of tile^ The Defendante are in possession. Have they a good title in
lawtothepn^rty? Does the will give them one ? This is the question raised
by the pleadings. The^stof 1801 gives a testator the absolute disposal of his
property. . '< * *^

In my opinion, therefore, a will under this act is a good title. The old rule
y^fj^Umortsamt levif. Under this maxim it i. «.;h .h„. >),. k.:. ..i,.. ,u.

B^bert
Potkm.

Bte although he must give it up immediately afterwards to the legatee. Now

T". •»■

'*'',

i4

Bobcrt
Borion.

COUR SUPERIEURE, 1857.

that He l.„ give, f, fc, .luT.r" tL , * '■""' *" °"» I""™ "»''

Ths appears from numberless decisions. The reason of the old r« e wl iStS

ofdisposal as existed in the />ayye/«rfro,-< icrit. On the principle ThereZ

o'n idH "'""' r"' '^" '"• * demand of rfe/.We Lu Id no ong/r^
cons^ere.1 necessary for a universal legacy. tTpon these grounds I tWnk thai
the present legatees were not bound to demand diliurance they having entered
into possession without it. As to whether it was a le,s\puLfrZntTnl
nece^ary to determine that question now ; it i, sufficient to decl that'the
Defendants are «ow entitled to possession, but the question may be lised here-

to lVl^f°T' "^ '^■' ^'^"'* °^^PP^"''' *'^« ^«f«"d'«'t« ^«'« J^c'^red bound
o ac ount for the rents, .sues and profite, including money, „p to the date of
the Judgment, which .vas to stand to them for a dllivraj But the executors
were se.ed with the peUal estate, and' could make m^rance de IJoft
sonal property.^ - U,^,,re there is scfme conflict of authority on this poi^.
but this istlie better opinion, of course, they do it at their own risk, aud iahe;
pay money which s not legally due, th.y must bear the loss. I th nfe t W

with their plea shewing a balance of ^298, and the Court, at Montrea Ze
Judgment for £298, each party paying his own costs. ^ ^

MoNDEtET, J said that the question was whether dilivrance de legs under the
law as we ave ,t in this country was necessary. He thought thf Ju gmel
at Montreal and Quebec were both wrong. The^ct of 1801 placed «?rthe
same position as in the Pays de droit ecrii. This delivrarue wa' not necel'
It was easy to see why the law customary in France made it necessary to de^n^'
rf«FJ.ra«.. from the heir. But here when a testator disinherits hi he r and
and makes another person his heir, it was absu-djor the latter to b obi 1 ^

that It does not be ong to him. In this way the Judgment at Quebec whL
vauciiiy ot the will m question in this cause; both the Provincial Tonw. thof

4»etiucstinathrt5jr the testator to TiErraw CharS

\ ■ ■• . ■■ L -,

CC^UR 8UPERIEURE, 186T. . ' , "j^.

'■ : — '■ — \ -^ ^ -.

Dorio.i and to his children of the name of Dorioit, and bo long as they shall
bear that name, of the usu/rtiit use and enjoyment d« tout leifondt et let rew-
nuiditous se$ argents. ChaWes Dorion having died pendente lite, his children
have been made parties in thoWuse in conformity with the suggestion to that
effect contained in the judgment of the Privy Council, which suspended furtlier
proceedings for that purpose, \nasmuch at the ehildren't interett materially
depended upon the eonetructiqn df the vill. Wh^itever doubt might be supposed
to have existed in the mind of\ the judges of that court upon the important
« question of the construction of (bd^ will, a doubt strongly implied not only from
their suggestion as above, but alsolfrom their reversal of the judgments of both
tb6 Provincial Courts Original and \\ppellate, the argument at the Bar before us,
has rested chiefly if not altogethee upon the application of the legal maxim le
y-mort taiiit le w/ and the necessity for the merely technical formality of the dili-
vrance de lege to the legatees in thi^ case by the Plaintiffs, the heirs, of the
testator. Considering the case upoii the restricted ground submitted by the
litigating parties themselves, and beihg unwilKng to discuss any other ground
not submitted, I have reached the Wame conclusion at which my colleagues
have arrived upon the Judgment to ibe rendered, .but not quite by the same
course that they have taken. In the systems of jurisprudence in force in
France at the time when our municipafUaw reached this Provin'ce, a representa-
tive to the estate was fully secured in Ustomary France, from which our law
proceeded, by reserving out of every esUte a portion or quote part called the
legitime for the heir, which Jhe law jealosy giarded fromUe testator's dispo-
sition of his estate, whilst fn ih&paye de droit ierit, although the capacity was
conceded, to the testatpr to dispose unrestrainedly of the entire ^w^nmoine, the
law was absolute in requiring the nominat on of an heir inititution d'hiritier in
the will itself, ho^evelr small the portion iequeathed to him. By these means
the vacancy of the estate und^er both systUs was avoided, and hence the rule
temortsaisit Uvi/m well as the legal fbrmsility of the dilivrance was recognized
as law aud applicable in bdth. The reasoris why the Customary Jurisprudence
necessitated the dilivrance by the heir, are Ithus expressed by Prudhon, Tr. de
rUsuffuit 1 vol. p. 481. 1

" L'empereur Justinien avait ddfini le le^,donatioyu<Bdum a defuncto relieta
et ab herediprestanda. De ces derni'^res expressions on a tir6 cette cons6-
quence qu'il n'appartenait point au 16gataire do se mettre lui-m6'me eifposses-
" sion de la chose ldgd6e :, et des lors il a 6t6 re5u comme une rfigle constante
• en junsprndence que tout I6gataire autre que le Wgataire universel doit obte-
-r. ?S r^.-*'"" <J^l'l»6ntier la delivrance de son legs oomme si l'acte,de lib6ra-
ht6 ^tait essentiellement subordonn6 k cette condition : en sorte que toute
entree en jouissance de la part du 16gataire qui nWait agi que de sa propre
aulont6 ne pent 6tre consider6 que comme une voie de fait incapable de
M TT ?^*'°^«"»««* ^ ""e possession I6gitime, etcontre laquelle li)>6rifier est
^^ fond6 k 8 61ever et k agir pour obtenir lui-mftme sa "r6int6grand6 et la restitu-
tion de toutes choses dans leur 6t&t primitif, sauf au 16gataire k mieux agir
_JgE^"'*«. P^r MPfl^deniande^uliAro,on d^avraace. Ln ii^HHsitA-tie-T

Bobwt

Ti.

Dorfam.

t

"ainsiestfonddesurcequel'h^ritierpeutavoifjg:^ Claire valoir

^.^•- "'

7-

18.

iftobert
Dorion.

ioUR 8UPERIEURE, 1867.

"<-

eminently Jbirid .,311^ 7r';'^'^'- ■"■<"» """'«• ««~
Th. effco. of ,hi. leLntia, wU ' « lb Xti'll r ""', *«"'"•

J»rt of our municfL law. TJie WmM^nJ. a ! ^ • previously, no
, ceased to be operatii befor; the Lnll « ""'^ "■'' "''*'°"' "^ "'« ^'^ 'aw
tor,efiactme„U. andlhc rtlblL^Z^^^^ T^ "^ '''^"^'"•' '^^^^^ «*«*»-

tio?ofthe,og«.Vort

disappeared with the>u„datio, ,o„ w „' th v^^^^^^^^^ "'"'' r^^"''""^
h vif and the formalftv of ^J:., 7 i '"' ™*"'" '* »«<»•' *«»«»<

'':^^'^^pz:s':xr^::^:::s^c' ■■""", '^°

effective for tbetr.n,lMo„ of bc„„este».br»o»!! !, T" °'"'''' "
»«.. ».<™ .,/., in Jber needingZl" „TorL ." ' ''"/"-""'--"■i"
prndeneeoftheCourLhaedeclaredtbeTrrj-; • ™™'''<'W*

pendentlyofth, foXw bTZ • • j ™"" """""'''"J'- ""'««•

-■?•

ral, ou celTe de ses immeubles oude somnobilier ,

' s^T^'-fc^^w^ra -"'rJ'^-s^^ys^^T^'iSP'^.

, f

COUR SUPERIEURE, 1867.

10

ou cello d'une quote part de nes immoubles, ou de son mobilior gin^ralement
pris." Now tlio bequest io tliis case is the uiu/ruit de toua tet/ondatt U revenu
de tout leg argents terms comprchensivo'in themselves and characteristic pf the
%* universel not of the legs a litre univeriel. The law upon this matter is thus
expressed by Grenior,p. 700, who says, where une queetiti dee hiena Su teatateur
is not reaerved by the law for any existing heir, " le 16ga(aire universel est saisi de
ploin droit par la roort du testateur san^ 6tre tenu de demander la* d61ivrance.
II a paru inutile dans ce cas d'astreindre le 16gataire uaiversel k la demande en
d6Iivrance do legs. Cp l^gataire est s^isi de la succession par la Id, il est mis
k la place des h6ritier8 du sang, k I'insjtar de rhfiritior testftmentaire en pays do
droit 6crit." Again the Usufructuary ^gatees are in pclual possession, which
the Plaintift's action admita by demanding the demission of that possession-
For what purpose, io restore it back bjj a dilivrance *rf« lega Sraue form f Sed^
even Henrys, Gui Pape, Papon and Rit^ard, th& strong advocates in favour of tho
formality observe, " que l'h6ritier ne korait pas fond6 k demander centre le
" Ifegataire le dfisistemedt de l*objet saluf k lui a faire ensuite la dfilivrance."
Hence Grenier remarks, " si I'h6ritier n'est pas r<?cevable k demander le disiste-
" ment, il rat inutne que le Wgataire lui demande 1» d61ivrance," and Pothier,
Don. Test. ch. 5, sect. 2, and Repertoire de Jurisptudence Vo. Ligatai.re §6, No.
7, both concur, " il suflBt au Wgataire de ret^nir la chose, car ce serait un
" circuit inutile qu'il I'a rendit i l'h6ritier pour/» lui demander de suite." The
PlaintiflTs claim for the/rMtrt et revenua of theWtate has no foundation against
these usufructuary legjitees, whose possession is for themselves and not for the
heirs the Plaintiffs. EVen upon the ground of the bequest being a Uga parti-
eulier, the action in that respect could not be maintained in the face of the law
Und authorities above mentioned and of the legatees' possession as above stated :
I have carefully confined my remarks to the ppints dwelt upon in argument,
and have nbt felt myself justified in looking b^ond them ; for these reasons
1 concur in the judgment rendered, restricting the Plaintirs claim to £298,
the balance shown in the account of the Executors of the will a» being for
matters not included in the usufructuary bequest to the legatees',
Le jugem6nt est motiv6 comnie suit : '

. "The Court having ^eard ^lie parties in this caute, Plaintiffs /wr i2epm«
« d'Instanee, and Defendants j)ar ^priae (Tlnatanee, % their respective counsel
^'upon the merits of this cause, with the exception of Walter Waller and
« Dame Eulalie Dorion, his wife, two of the Defendante^r Reprise d'Tn^nce
«who arem default to appear, and with the exception of Dame Elizabeth
" Malcolm, tutrix to her junior child, Severein Dorion, and one of theDefendants
'rpar Reprise d^Inatance, she being in default to appear by an Attorney in this
" cause, examined the proceedings and evidence adduced, and particularly the
♦' last will and testament of the said late Jacques Dorion, and having delibe-
^' rated, considering that the said Defendants /,ar 7J«pmc cT/iwtance, to wit the
^,d Jean-Baptiste Th6oph1l^Dorion, Charles Dorion, Firmin Dofion, George
«« ""..^*"''*"' *"** M»"«-Ei'?«"i^ Dorion, his wife. Eustach6 Dorion."
— HoraUo ^*tw JoMeHr^faneiH3; JolraBonrEnrifan 4geK^,-AVaIte^ and
"Eulalie Dorion, his wife, Dame Elizabeth, Malcdm and Charles Z6phirin
«'Donon, have established the material allegaUons set forth andcontained

\ ■

Bobn*

VI.

Ddrion.

"T

20

i

COUR SiTPERIEDRE, 1887.

Bobrrt

Oorton.

.^1

'•cauo an „:::"' ''""""r' ^"•*''*' "''°« -i'^"'" !>«'•«''"-'" in thi
" ZT7W T ""'^ ""•"«» *"'^ «»P««i'ie». to tho action an.l V.««,„i, of

"ie B n J n'"*'"""' ^--"*'"'- D<»Wo„.a„d partic.Iarly^'thi

the Bn.d Jacque, Donon ,n a.ul by hi, last will and Testament olograph
ma.1 and executed on the ninth day of March, one thousand eight hundred
and wenty-ono.d.d bequeath to tho .aid Charlea Dori,n and 1 oh Idr -

under the I«nU«t.onMhere.n contained, and that Bsi.l bequest by law imparted
a %* ««.W to and in favor of the said Charlo, Dorion'and hir.^d

%, j.me/) un er the provisions of the said last will and Te.ta.nent' wa^

. to vest, n^tho said Charles Dorion and hi, children, by law. the estate .o

bequeathed^ to them, by the said testator, so as to rJer any Iw^ :

<i^^Jance de le,„ ly the said Charles Dorion and his said children altogether

"trrrrn7i : ^-f'^- -"*'•»? that«t the time of the instituL of

" ri JoMhe 1 1 1 f n ■""'. if*'^"^'' ^-«"' I'y virtue and under the autho-
" „J r. ! n "^ ""^^ Testament, and that such possession was legal

and valid to all intents and purposes, and that by reason thereof, and by llw
m>jrct,on accrued to and in favor of the said Plaintiffs to have and maintain
the cofl.Ius.ons by them take,, in and by their said declaration against the
sn.dCha.les Donon and the othor abov.-nan.ed Defendant par Repriu
d'Imtance respect.Ug h.m. the s.<id Chatles Dorion ; the Court doth maintain
the 8a,d exception so by them the said Defendant, par Reprice d^Instanct
represent.ng'the said. Charles Dorion, one of the saiVo.igh.,1 DefendanT^
pleade. ,n and by the said p<^e.„ptory exception, and doth dismiss tl.U
Ac ,on/hs respecu, .he sa,d Defendants par Reprice ^/«.tan« respecting the
sa,d lates Char les Dor,o.^o.,e of the principal Defe..dai.ts ; and further con-
s.denng U.at the sa.d Defendants p.,r Reprise cTInstanee representing the
or.g,nai Defe..dants Horatio Gates and Nathaniel Jones, impleaded as De-
fendants m the present Action, in .their capac.ty of Executors of the last
w II and Testament of the said late Jacques Dorion have .^ndered to the said
Pla,nt.ffs par Repnse d'lr^.tance a just and faitl.ful account as they were bound
^^ o do by law of the.r ges..on and administration of the said estate of the said
a e Jacques Donon m their said quality of Executors, of ,hat portion of the

« Tnd in f ^ T "r""" °' ''" "'' "**« •^-"^"«'' ^--' "-» -npVhonded
and .ncluded ,n the un.versal bequest by the said testator fc. the said Charle.

" deTthTiid nT^^^^^^^ and oo^denng that by the said accou..t so J"

-Ga^s'and N:^! at"; r" '"•" """ ''^"""''" "P'"'-"*"'^ '^' ^«''^ Horatio
Gates and Nathar..el Jopes, ,t appears that there is due and owing from the

said estate .nd succession ^f the said lat. J^.q,„H p^Han by tho,! TZ^
••to., thereoras ai,«4auceof r.fty««/rf.. co«,^i the sum of tworuaS J+d

' -Tfc T^ ^» -^""s T^ ? "^^ >"'"''

f y

COUB SUl'ERIEUKB, 1857.

21

" ninotv-ftvo poundu night sliillings and eight ponco, current money of this Pro-
" yinco of Ciii.iKin, to the Plaintiff* par Reprite d'fnalanee m the iicirs-at-lnw

• of iho (Wild iatu Jncqiiiflfc Dorioii : It i* tlieroforo Riljudgod that the Raid Dcfend-
' anta i>ar R^priu tflnilanee, ropresenting the original defendant*, lloratio
' Oalps and Nathaniel Jonea, to wit, Horatio Gutea^ Jones, Francis O. Johnson,
' in his said capacity, and Emilan lilcKay, in his said capacity, be and they
*«re hereby condemned to pay and satisfy to the said Piaintiffi par Reprise
' (Tliutanee, the said sum of two hundred and ninety -five pounds, eight shillings

* and eight pence said qtirront money, balance or reliquat de eomptt remaining
' in the hands of the said Executors, with interest thereon from this day, and
' the Court doth condemn each party Plaintiffs and Defendants to pay their
' own costs.

" His Honor, Mr. Justice Mondelet, concurs in the conclusion of the Judgment
' dissenting, however on that part of the Jtidgmont which qualifies* as a Ugt
' univeriel, a be^Juest, which, in the opinion of Judge Mondolot is a Ufft parti-
' eulier, but adds that in neither case is there necessity for a dilivraiue de Ufft."

Cherrier, Dorian et Dorian, pour los demandeura.

Lehlane et Catsidy, pour lea defendeura.

Bobwl

rs,
IX)rtoti.

APPENDICE A.

COPIB DU DOCUMENT PRODUIT PAR LES ofepEIf DEtJRS COMME
fitANT LE TESTAMENT DE JAQQu£ DOM '

' , 7 ^fT' ' ■ ■ "♦

JacqaoB Dorlon de laparoise Seute utoqhe, lequoUe.e Den/ie e le^ae 4#frtreOhail«
Dorion Oomme le Dei Jacques Dojlon do la religion OatjiUque e romenae com sin De
core e Desprei prevenant la morcom netart poia inmortellft'je recomande a Dieu qui ma
fasemigericor.sireicorde quime padonne me B^che Com jepretan avoir un place au roiome
De sei amei aaran Des Bon receive moo name ge Don a Ohalle Dorion la goiyan de tons
lea fon que go posede ausoi Bien com lin terro de toutes lea arganta avequo les vanfan
qai ladesa darnier fame, quo toutes les yanfan qulora avequo elle auselto que mon
frdre ee*a mor, oi reteiron tout les profei intere s'aquir* touto qu'a souse qui porte'ron to
no Do Donon ausUo que sa feiguo core mareiaid sa cera foinel lo garson De sa fame
reteiron tout le rovenou gatan pour le repo de mon name quo auqi^nDemo fon nesoiiitie
vandou ansoi que I'argants quelargant que I'argantarestera ou ale tt)tfte lerevenou eiron
toujouro Depere anfei, ausci ala charge Dep6gu<J a ma seur Mario Dorion tons los yane
qumco Lou.8 Deu cour actuello qui pera touta ma deto auquin tor quo go foure ovoir
fette lo tout apro ma mor qui goiron gaUn pour me founeraquo avoir le pleu Bo sarvice
qui no Boiquo poin vou etre antere Dan lo mi loi auei Deu Semiquire qua touto lo mon
aeique Des siargo povre com reicho »» venavoir qiiatro les plusprobho, me bin on
paran qu, sois que a Beiaie an noir a nto Depan aveque dea Bans Delliaire, quatre autre
Do mo pleu pre De mo yamei, quatre Bandelleiaire blanche gatan etre expose dans mon
aarqueretro goureavequo me pleu Boza BeiDana la pleuBello demo ohambretouteaeuce
qu, vouDron me voir me voigue, sei t,uto foi mon core ^n a peu« trope Do i'an Bome
avequo un Belle peuw De Dra noir->our la mettre toat an noir, c. cera pour legliee
apro gatan Do pleu avoir la Pleu Belle tomBe qui vion Dangloterro an marBro, aveo
JggyAJgMlR?"'? rantonreavegne DeBaro do fcrc Qo pretaa otf«-aatefe a la roiveii-

"BSichene, Sei go venea moureiro Dan quelque androi De'mapo^U DMlotto'"p«otad
ecepete quo aa paeon cinquante livre, Deplen gatan quolea Domaiteiquo touto parson

\

4

ft

Bobtrt
Uoriun.

CX)UR fiUPERIEURB, mi.

torn fctto g,m, ,,„, „.„ .,„^„„ p;^,7» (''•«"'"». »ou «, jr.UnMl„„, ,„„», ,ut,. «,„,

''> ; Hlgn<.

• ' - ., Y JACQUES DORIOM.

* . ' A^PENDICE B.

mSTKIOT OP MOKTREAL.
IN tllE COURT OF KING'S MENCU

, '. No. «M. .
^ „1*MDAY TIIK «0TU AFRir,, .88*. -

Dorion, be.ri„g d.to tL ninth of March onel . ??"' °' ''"' "'«' '»'» J«q"««
Md the Inventory of the e.ute. IZ^lt IZ fl- l"^ Vk^'' '"'"''''*' ""' '^«""y-one.

thetin.eofhUdece.«,.t..canSLe^^^^^^^^
.the B«icl pcfcndant Cbarlea Dorlon 1. entitlL 1 .?''"* ''"^ "^ '*•'•«»«'''»,
"mitation-^c^^taltacd in the -aW n»,t wi^and t T* ' '"*'' *"' Po-e", under the

, ^«'°'»«^'>tlM«iaiateJacque.D o„a thetll rT'/" """ ""^ •"'*'" *"'«=•>
of the e.id«Il^st.to, no aotfon hith accrued to ^ "'[^"JT'"'' ""* """ "> "«"«
due to tbom touching the ,ame. And inZar^ of ^1 V^' """ " ""^ '««"»*
the said late Jacques Dorion. it ap Jr "haul thi 1 ,,"'"' '""^"'^ •"•* •'f""" »'

f '"^/-'.-B Porion. th; test^^rhath ; .roni^^or M "' '"'*"''"'• "«' »»'•

bequeathing the Interest thereof to the aid Oha es DoH- ^' '- ""'"'* ^' *'''"* ""*
age;whh his last wife j but that by the«„r«.? • ■^"'^ '*'*'"' •"^"'•'«'> of hlsmarrl-
n.ent.lt would appea'r to S J enlToTr;'^":' "

legacy, not only tg money in Ms own pZsln' It til t "';:.**' '''''"'''''"' •» ^'«
monies which he has, in his lifetime, pSoutVnd 7^'"" "''""'' ^"^*"«> »"•

that under this legacy the said Ch" e^rnon i^ * 'iZ? .* = """"" ' "-d th«rcfor,
interest accrued and become due, ud h^Sto a. ?*?"' "*'" '""' ™"'^° »"«

, lifetime, on the foUowingsums of' ^neyXucrd out «d " T' '""-^"""^ '"^

ru^rctz:rt:£^Sr^- ^^^

May, one thousand eight hundred a^dT^t;!'''^' ^""^ '"'' '''' ''^"'''^ "^^ <>'

^^^^^^:^::^tX:;t^i^:^iT'' .Minings .ndfourpene,.
Esquire. by deed passed before ig n and his clu ll" nTT "^ "^ '' '''"""'''«"••
bearing date the twenty-sixth day of SeotemW IT.T' !^'^'" "* Terrebonne, and
On the sum of eighty pounds nineteln,;^^' """ '!"'"**"«' «'«^t hundred aadtwelre.
by obligation passed beC^Ddsaut ^^ "^^^^^^^ '''"''' *»"« ''^ Pierre Polrier, ,

eighth day of July, one thousa^^btrdredtd"^^^^^^^^^^ ^'^"« "^^ ^

-9. - •.

• : ti.i

m

COUU flUl'EIUlifeK. 18»7,

41.

•i

, On tha tarn of flftocn poundi twalr* ihlllinKi -nd tliptrior, da« by }f»»-B«pUiU
Ubriehe, by obliKttloii puiod b«r..r« K. ii. Haguin And hit colUnfui, noUrtaf,*U»«
MT«nt««nth d«y of March, on* thouiand tight hundred and Un. ■•.

On tha turn of four hundred and ninaty-tartn pound*, fourtaan thtlllnKi and ona
panny, dua by Louia |i«rdat dli Laplarra, by da«d paai.d l>afore J. M. O^laui and hit
oolleaKue, noUflet, at MoQtraal, baaring data tha Ihirtiath day of Oolobar, oda thooMAd
aight iiundred and tiiteea.

On thetum oftwantyH)napoundt, flva thiltingt, dua by Loult Ohauratta, byobllgaUoB
baaring data tha twenty-fourth day of April, ona thoutand eight hundred and twenty.
«nd paued before J, IXaautelt, and hia colleague, notariei, at Montreal.

On the lum of four thoutand four hundred poundi dua by Horatio OaUi a«d Naphaw
by obligation paued before J. J)4aautata and bit colleague, noUrlat, at Montraal, and
bearing data the eighth day of July, ona tbouiand eight hundred and leTenleen.

On the turn bf one thoutand fo^r hundred poundt dua by Horatio Oatai, Btqulre By
Obligation patted before H. OrilHn, and hit colleague, uoUriet, at Montraal, and beaming
lUU the twenty-fourth day of Deoambar, ona thoutand eight hundred and leTenteaa.

And at to all the other moveable property, debt* and clfcctt, which belonged or wara
dua and owing to tha taid tetUtor kt the time of hit deceate, and of which no ditpoiitlon
appeart to hare been made by tha taid latt will and teiUment, it ia adjudged that tha
lama U and are the property and dp of right belong to the taid Plainliffli-and it it
?•.?"''?/„'.'•''• *'"* "" "'" ^•«">'i'"»*^ """« "ch and arery of them do deliver no
. T "1 .?!:."''' '" '"'* ""'' "" ''«"""»•'"•. P«P«ra and Toucher, in the poataadon
of, the .aid defendant, or of any or either of them touching or ragard(^ all or any of tha ^
•aid moreable property, d.hU and alRoU, he«»by .<J„dgad to the taid Plaintift_«nd
haTlng teen and examined the account baaring data the aUth day of October, on. thou-
tand eight Auadrad and twenty-three, and filed in thi. Court on tha ..T.nth day of tha
aama month, made and rendered by tha .aid HoraUo Qata. and I^athanlel Jone. the

po..e.,lon tince and during theb: adminl.tration under tha .aid laat will and ta.UmenJ
to which '"'oount no objection, have been made or Uken by any of tha partie.-lt i.
thereupon adjudged that tha .um of two hundred and nlnaty-flra pound., eight .hilling,
and eight penc*. being the balance remaining in the h.ndt of thftaid «eLtor ba by
them paid over tUe .aid Plaintiff,, firtt deducting therefrom what .hall be r^tio^lwj
taxed and allowelljto the .aid executor, for their co.ta and expen... in ani aJTtlhi
pr..ent action-aud^ 1. finaUy adjudged that e*ch party do piy their own coaU

Bobarl

ft.
Uurlon.

^

PBOVIRCB Of' >.

LowKE Canada;

appen5ice C.

COURT OP APPEALS.

The 19M qfJanuarg 1888.
BTIENNB DOBION A AL.,

««.

APPUXAim,

CHARLES DOEION ft AL..

UttPOHBBRn.

The Court having heard the parties by their Counsel, examined their proceeding and
maturely dcl.berated.upon the whole, i. of opinion that, the .aid ZoZdIZT

»ndaight hundred and Xwenty-one, did devise and bequeath tlhi.Er pk."!:
Dorion, and4u4lH>^<rfriM^ of the said CfaarUs Doribnt^WKit wife SlJ'..?K'^i^'
said Charles Dprion, the usufruct of all the real and iZIZl^JS^

■1

. m

#

','pr"-

«•*

C^UH BUP&HUUUJi; \H1.

• •of Ion

I'

:»)i

P

Pfoptrljr of him, ll.« t»ld J«cq.iM DoHon,oi, th. .Im, of hit 4«c««t«. wtik tW hiMMt.
«eru, upon .h. ..,.«! ..curltlu bjr mori«.,;. r..r ,h. ,h.,«.„. otmon^j of wSTlT

.hl^dr-n b. „« m.l., .„d ,h. Ilv.,. of hU ...d children b„.„g f.„;„., „ ,„«, ,i;'™

Oi»(o .nyor rllh.r of thorn. It I, .hcroforo c«...ld„.d .ad .djud»^d that EtI.nn.
Dorlon .„d M.,1. Il^.„. „.,rlo,, the ..Ulntim. I.. ,hl. c. nr .Tth./.r. I "bl

.uch the tr..a .„. Uwft.1 „ro,.rl,l„r. of th« .ucc.ion of th. .aid j;.,,,... Do lo«, d"
c.M.d, «„d of .1. th. ........ rlgh.., d,bt., mom., .nd .rr«ot. mo.. Ji .nd ZoJr

' ••'■'' "'• "•"• »«»»»•'. "Weh «>«?««• th. «ld .ucc^Mion, .od that th.reof .ndTf

•n. tied d / /r, rf. ,.ro,,r,<«, ...bj.c to .!.« ...uf^uot .nd to th. p.ym.n.V th. lnt.r.il
d.,l..d .nd b.q«.ath.d, .. .f„r«..id, i„ tho m.n«.r hcr«in.ft„r .djudg.dld lcc,lr.d
-And I. Ufurth,rco„.ld.r.d.n* adjudged tl..t the ..id l..t v;ill*.„d J.t.:.„. of
Ihi? hT" ?""""• '•"•*"•'' '•""'"« •""• •"•' •""»" -J-r of M.rch on. tho«.nd
wll , .nd h.t und.r .nd bjr vfrtu. thereof th. ,.ld Uh.rlai Uorlon and hi. ..id ohlldm

..uu^icTr^"''"' •"*'"•' '"''•' ''"*^"^' "'•" '"• -•' -«» '-"--"b";

•■t.tc which w.. the ,,ro,H,rt7 ofhim, the ..id J.cque. Dorion, on th. d.r of hi. d.ce... ,
.nd to the p.er.,t to .ecru, upon the .erer.l .ecurrtle. b, ^or.g.g, for the 1«. nl*
of money of which he, the ..Id J.cqu,. Dorion. died po..e.,ea, from .nd .firS
r„ . 1 ' .IT T ""»'"'»'«'r i "d ln«n.uch i« It .ppc.r. from the proceeding.

bi. ..id children, been demanded or obuined of or from the Pl.lntlff. in (hi. c.uu or
elUieroflhomj but th.t the Defense of the ..Id Defendant Oh.rle. Dorion, in thi. '
C.U.C, i. . cl.im of title on behalf of him.elf and of his ..Id children to the u.ufruct
.nd iatereit nfores.ld under and by virtue of tho ..id last will and testament of the .aid
J.c.|ue. Dorion, deceased. It I. further considered and adjudged that thU present
Judgment do and shall stand as . Judgment «n dtlivranct d€ Ug,, and that under and
by virtue thereof, the said Charles Dorion and his said children, from and after thl.
day and during the life of the said Ohurles Dorion, the live, of his said children belnir
males and the lives of his said children being females or until the day of the marriage
of the said children, being males as may first happen, shall be entitled to possess, have .
.nd hold en u,ufr^ .11 the real and immoveable estate which was the property ofhim
the said Jacque. Corion, on tho day of his decease, and to receive the rents, issues and
profits thereof, wMch from and after this day shall ^accrue thereon, and the Interest
which fromiind after this day shall in like manner accrue upon the several securities
by mortgage for the payment of money of which the said Jacques Dorion died possess-
ed ; and inasmuch as thl. Plaintiffs in the cause have been by Law seized of the esUt*
•nd succession of the said Jacques Dorion from tho day of his decease until dtlivranet
de Ugi, was by this Judgment so as aforesaid made and awarded, and in contemplation
of law, were, therefore, possessors thereof rfn bbnne/oi; It is furtherconsidered and .d-
Judged that the said Etienne Dorion and Marie H6l6ne Dorion, are, and they .re here-
by declared to be entitled to all the rints, issues and profits, which have accrued upon
all, .nd any and every part of the real and immoveable eitate which wm the property

.1,1

'■y.

']

:^

•**»■■■:«»,, I,,

^^

\q^

M

COUR SUi'KiUlfiUUI. lt0Y.

Of lb, «ld Jm,,.,, Dorlon unlll ,hl. .1.^. Au.l by r.Mon of lb. p„mU.» II I. "rSI!

.nd .v.,jr of lh,m, from M- d,, of th. .I.o.m, of tb. «,d Ob.rl.. pTrLlm it
d^ :~lh.l lb. ..Id (Jb.rl.. Dorlon, lior.tlo (Uu. .„d K^lbrlV jV„.. . , k t
th.m in lik. „.„„„ ,.. th« .„•«. of .hr.. month, a." .fl^r .1,0^^^^ °'

-fo.rrd..cr.puo„ofwb.cb tb. «.d j^Xe^ui^rd ^1^^^^^^ I*';.::?"

lb. d«c.M. bf tb. t»ld J«cqu«. DorloD, b*re ooifa. to ih»hZT, . ""

th. ..,d Ob.rle. Dorlon, „ir.t,o qJ. .ni N.t „M Jon ;: :V'Z;tfr^^^ "'
< U.^7. .nd mor. partlcuUrlr do r.nd.r . Ju.t «d tru. Jcouat. „ t, tTZ ^JJTtt '
•n the lnl«re.t wblch b.th .ocrued and b.oom. du. upon tb. ..malTcurlU.- h ' !
gag. for tb. p.jmint of mon.y of wbloh tb. Mild We. Dorh.n 1 1 ' """^

th.d.rof tb. d.o.M,of th.«Id4.cqu..D"roiu„TilS^^^^^^ T

dccM. of tb. «ld J.c,,u.. Dorlon h.. com. to tb. Ld. pom^lon 07 J^ "7 "t*
.aid Cbarl.. Dorlon, UoraUo O.U. .„d N.,bat.l.l Jon.," ^; o?" "r Jf ir" m""
Ij: and la.tly It 1, oon.ld.r«d wid ..Uudg.d that tb. Iud,ln of 1 ^ .T^^

»m« doth In any re.p«ot mllltat. againat tbi. Judgment or aMin.t.n, m... ?u.
motion Mth. Attorney of tb. .aid AppiZr Attorn.y-O.n.ral on hi.

»».
tturtuii.

appenimcedT
■at the court op st. james.

^A* 1B<A />ec«»4«r 1880.
FUUIBT:

The King-. Most Exoellent MiKJestjr in Council.
Whereon, there was this day read at th« Hn«„i « n

lb. l.,d, of lU,,0.„mit,™,„'c,l',t2^;H„;f ■■"'"» "" """" "°°™'"»

»

')

•f

■^:

..^i

':^|

BoKert
Dorion.

t^UPERIOh COURT, 1887.

— 1 .

Iu„\?° Jt*""""* Vt """"^ °'Klng5. ^nohatMontrealof the aoth April 1824 and
Court of KIng-sBeoch with ..Docl.ration that the children oMheAreJ^ "1 1

and also the judgment of the Court of Appeal, of the Province of Lower Canada of ie
nineteenth of January 1828, be and the same are hereby reverJi «!r!., f!^ ' ^
and the same is hereby remitted to the -aid? u of \"r^L^ an^^^
declared that the ehildren of the Appellant Charles Dorifn, fot X iarUes L theTu f
the com.idera«on of the com.tr„ction of the will of the tesUtor Jacqu« Do ion tn^ot

of the sa,d Charles Donon ^M^rially depends upon that eonstruction Whe«of ^
Governor, Lieutenant (^ov-yJ^Tor Commander-in-Chief of the Prov nee of wT okJl;

;'j:;rmrrarrr:r^

_ This i8.to certify that the foregoing is a true copy of his Mi^esty'sdi^er in Council on
the Appeal of Ohar;es Dorion against Btienne Doripn, and another, from a jfdZnt of
the Court of Appeals for the Province of Lower Ca^afla of the 19th of January^ae

(Signed), '. ■"

ConHciL Ofwo., I ' THOMAS DEVEY, (L. S.)

- Whimhali,, 7th April, 1835. ) . :*■

/

UONTREAIip. 29 MAI, 1888,

Coram Smith, J.

No. 2889.

I Monty y. Ruiter.-^ ;^i

J.U56,Que le writ jStant to commencement de Taction, la Cour a juridiction du jour de sontoan.

\ tion, par I'iSrection d'un nouvcau District. "• "<!i«ui wn emana.

Le writ d'assignation qui avaient 6t6 6man6 en cette cause le 26 Fevrier

1858, avail fetd 8ignifi6 le ff Mars ^58 au domitile du Defendeur dans leTown-

■ abip do Dunham, dans le nouveau District de, Bedford, par un huissier de la

Paroisse de Ste. Marie de Monnoir, ci-devant enclav6e dans le District de Mont-

,^eal et maintenant dansile District d'Iberville. \

Le Defendeuf prodoisit une exception d6clinatoiVe par-riaqnelle il pr6tendait
que la Cour n'avait aucune juridiction ni sur la matiere en litigo ni sur le D6.
fendeu^ qui .50 -lui 6tait pas justiciable. L'Acte de Judicature de 1857 est
deveny en fo*ce le 6 Man 1868 en sorte que le District de Bedford adds lors
6t6 6rig6 pour ies fins oivilte par I'op^ration de cette loi.

Smith, J.--By the 146th section of the 20th Vic ch. 44, it is stated that "no
« alterations in the-limits of any District or Circuity &c. shall affect any sdit or
« proceeding pending when such alteration' shall take place," &o. Ac. Was
this snit pending from the dity pg ybJoh tfae writ iasned ip-.tltiiMMHHfrf' -Frogf^

SUPERIOR COURt, 1868.

21

the language of the 12th Vic. chap. 38, selTi/Vhe issuing of the writ mn.t
bo takon^as bo commoncement of the action. ,o that in thb instance theTn
hav.ng-been .ssued before the proclamation for the new districts S su t fS
withm the provisions of the 1.46th section of the Judicatrro Act of gs^
where. JJ is stated that certain actions shall not be affec^^r^^^^^

aani, out tbe bailiff had no ncht to sonra thn »rif t„ «i.- • > ,

/-/.«/>»^. r ^ , ,. -^^"'Piion diclinatoire diBiaiaaed

Mflomme, Za/lamme if: £arnard, for Phintiff. " "missea.

DoAer/y, for Defendant.
. (P.E.L.)

- - Y MONTREAL, 26 SEPTBMBRB ^^^^ 7 " " '^r

' ■ pOrOTO BlDOtBY, J. V^

,j^ ■ ' " X • No. 1881, • ■ ' \ ." ■% ■ —

^oarf«»a» va. X^to«n,.««, and Jgtf. ^^r««,«, Opposant.
•Le rapport de collocation et de distribution des deniem rapnort^s en o^»«

Zancto^, pour le Demandeur. /
. Cherrier, Dorian 4& Dorim, T^r VOppoBMt. . '

Ftrfe m6me d6cision, par le ju^e C. Mondelet, en la cause No 26*o ;^. a.-., -
vs. I^ieu., et divers Opposants, et Hapin, Op^osant, per^ttant f ^I f ^

de pro^uire son Opposition afin de conserver en par lui^p Sn dZ
dip$ns ; le 28 Octobro 1868. ^ proc6dai^t d »e«i»-qpr«

(P.B.L.) ;

:'■■ • ' ' ' — — _«;

, MONTREAL, 81ST OOTOBEB. 1887.

.'.■",--■ ■ No. 889. c, • ^ '^

Desbarats V. Murray. »

""^^?i:^l£aK^S^^ nephew .. .„«to,,.„.,.

This was an action brought among other things for the

^quantity of fire«woDd

recovery of thoprJM

VoDiir
BalMr.

ana nay alleged to K^Feen wld by the Plaintiff to

/ A

■*;■

28

SljPERIOR COURT, 186r.

DwlMnte
Mumgr.

the Defen Jant, neither parJ. being a trader. At the onqufite, a witness of the

with a v,ow to prove the s .1 » and delivery of the firo-wood and hay. The wit!
iT *"\f J^f ^ ^ " ^'HS ^i^''"' the degree of relatibnship prohibited by
he'tZl &" '"-mpet „t: The presiding Judge ordered the evidence to
be taken ^fe„. me, as the witness resided out of the District, and the objec-
tion was afterwards adjudicated upon by, the Court as above constituted;
and by an interlocutory . adgment rendered on the Slst October 185Y
relord ™ ""^ declared i, competent and his deposition rejected from the

he enqufete to the compcten y of the nephew of the Plaintiff brought forward

taprovethesaloofwo^ anl hay left in the premises of the PlaLiff at the

' "r; r^.r' "''^^^'•'" totheD^fendant. It was objected at the argu

- Z I o "r' "'* ' """ ""''"'^^ "«***'• ^"^ "'«»- «« '* ^«« not a sale in

twJ", r K ^'' "n""" 't' r '^«™'"««'™' ««1«. This has been the uniform

T.ew taken by our Court, he,^,tofore in similar cases, for example, the selling Z

mTvt' t J. '" J'^'T" °^* ^•'"'■■^^^^^ « « commerialVact, !nd
may be considered at;he setVd jurisprudence of our Courts.- The [Lml

judge thought- that^nother con V'^ojight be arrived at 'The evidencT^f
'the witness Iftn8t|)e rejected, ( me evwence of ,

MoNDKLBT, J. thoqght that the jlirlspnidence was right

Smith, J. did not dissent,, as this had Trecbn.e a settled jurisprudence but
couU^eete distinction. 'Hj.pa^.,,, of a moveable Lml^r^irW
by sale «as in h» view an act of «nAerce. The question ought not to be
Sjat the capaj^ty of the parties Was. ef, were they tFaders, but what was the

■ TeTf ^"- ^^^'^ >-r^-- J>«^ »»^ «>«- -"led. he w?uld have been ds
posed to give a different judgment.

3^ ^ J^cfe*; for Plaintiff Motion granted.

Orosa c£- ^ancroy/, for Defendant.
(H.B.) " •■

<»

i^

r

ffjfl?-

%> '

p

' [

9 H

COUR DU BABIC DE LA REINE, 1858.

99

EN APl'EL

• - • DU DISTRICT DES TROIS-RIVIERES. . . *
QUEBEC, 13 DECfiSlBEE vm^

Coram Sm L. 11. LAroNXA.NB, Bart., J. C, Atwxk, J.. DuvAt, J.. Carok, J.

'McCarthy KT Ai,

/. ' Appelante.

ST

^ „; - /: HART, ■ X' \ > ' '■ ;_

-; I ^^"iandeur en,eour de premiere imtanee.

■ / . ■ ■ ; ■; ' V ■ "■ . -

SUBSTITUJriON-RELIGI(|iNJUDAIftUB. ^ '"*'"'^'

Jng6 :-Qu'on vortu U.-s clauses d'un tMtamont'portant^iibstitution nt md .^„f \

suit , pourparu„4ol .njoulrcn usMfruit. sa vio duTtruSnf l2*!^^^^^^ "ub^tanco comte,
, dn, A IVnfant mile aintf issu etf l^iilmo mariwe ifclj H et a.. J4. ^„^1. t,'*'"' •** "PP^tlen,

: transmise A renfant mAlo n« en Wgitimo riiaSo dot r etXn ^ "T '"' "^ P-^P^dM ,oi»
do B,H.. qui doit roouoillir Boit un enfant nMoM^'X^' l ' T "*'"' "^^ «»««'•
stitution doit s'ouvrir au profit do cot enfant ■ nuo tt oiZf .u ' '*'i!/ "'^ ''''"' ">"« '» «"»»•
n'enaltimsou. ' **"" r'7'*"',»" «« •"» ft-*™ «in6 prt-diSc^dfi ow

. Sir L. H. Lafontaink, Bmonni^, Juge <|i Chef :

On lit dans le testament de feu Aaron £art, fiut dans ^a ville des TroU
R.v.6res o« le testateur avait son do^icil^ la clause suivante • To " Don^r;-

S't ' t" r"^"^ ^ Benjamin/Sart. son trolsi Je fils 1 h^St
" deux/6tage3 etc., etc., pour par le dit liktaire en jouir sa vie dur«nL .

M, la propriSto .tant -W., a ^ enfant le II L^erli^

/ maiiage. et au cas de non-enfant, la ditefpropriet6 «iii*/,-/«/, ,„i ^^g''™«

•' aWleg^du troisieme et quatri.ie JX^TustlVr''''^^^

Cjs deux articles 3 et 4 doivent done servir a expliquer le 7e dont il sWt
Par U 3e. il l.gue ^ Moses Hart, son fils ai„6, tons ses droits dal Je/fi f 11
MarLente et-Dusable, "pour par le dit Moses Hart en jouir crusuf Jtt vt

iZa^l'v7T^ 'r, '"^'■''" '"^""'^ ^"'^ '' ^'-^T annexes seL UppI
tietidra k' I'enJ^ male aine issu en legitime manage du dit Moses Hart. eH^
c^ que Ip d.^ur Moses Hart dee6derait sans e'nfant m^le n6 ou 4 naUrl en
16^,t,me manage, b dit test^eur veut et ordonne que la propriL des di^
fiefs et de tousles droits y afferants, soient transmis 4 I'enfan? m^le n6 en l^tf
^me manage du sieur Ezekiel Hart, etau cas de mort de ce dernier satrenffnt'
ma n6 ou a nai tre de son dit mariage, la propriety des dil^fiefs ainsi qL de
dro. 8 appartenants, pafc*ra entre les mains de I'enfant^mlre r^ en iSim!
manage du sieur Benjamin HarVetc., etc," '(3e fils du testateu^ '^uiW •
«ne semblable disposition quant k I'enfant m^Ie d'Ale^ander. Hart^re fflTdu
tosMeur,) rf est d.t : « E;. cas de mort de ce dernier sans «„fent mLe nf o„ I
n^ tZ^":^'^' ^ propn.t6 des dits fiefs U d. ton. I^d^ju ;'i

J*

m..a^,ui.iiu^^.u-m^^ ^„ ^^/^r,2

(

Xj

f'^-

'-1-

30

COUR DU.BANC DE LA REINE 1868.

;mi

McCarthy

■vg.

Uart.

:.•/:

If

dits sieure Mosca, Ezckiol, Benjamin" of Alexander Hart, auxqueU lea dits biens
deracureront substituia Tun ^ I'nutre dans les ilits cas, avcc ootto defense par Ifl
dit testateur qu'il, dit sieur Moses Hart, usufruitier dcs susdits fiefs et de tous
les droits y annexes, no pourra en aucune manidro, vandro, engager et aii6ner
et Lypoth6quer les dits fiofs, la propri6t6 6tant r6serv6o comme dit est."

Le 4o article du testaiflent contient un legs aemblable. dii fiof Bocaiicour'qui
est donn6^n premier lieu au second fils, Ezckicl Hart, puis successivement ggx
autres fils du testateur, aux ni6me8 termes et conditions que dans lo tfojsiim^*
article. ' ^ ■ . ' »*^

II est evident quo les troiniome et quatri^mo articles portent substitution,
d'abord en faveur d'un enfant loftle, puis, 4' d6faut d'un tel enfant, en faveur do
" la fille alpde la plus ag6e du niariage dcs sieurs Moses, E&ekiel, Benjamin et
Alexander Hart, '? les quatro fils du testateur ; il est encore bien evident que le
testateur k voulu que la substitution no p^ofitAt i^.cette fille que dans le cas oi
' il n'y auraili pas^ 4 Ift mort du grev^, d'enfaut pi&le d'micun de scs fils. Pre-'
nons le 3e article,' aux t^mcs duquel les fiefs Ste. Marguerite et Dusablfi doivont
"hppartenir d'abord A "Tenfant millo ain6 issu en legitime mariage du dit Moses
Hart, et, au cas que le dit Moses Hart , d6c6derait sans enfint m&le ne ou &
naltre en legitime mariage," alors i " I'enfant m&lo n6 en I6gitime manage du
dit Ezekiel Hart, etc., etc." 11 me serable olair que celui das enfants de Mofees
Hart qui doit recueilHr, doit 6tre un enfant m&le vivant k son d6c6^car c'est
alors que la sul^stitutipn doit s'ouvrir ao prgfii de cet enfant, que cet enfant ait
eu un fr^re ain6 pr6-d6c6d6, ou n'en a"it pas eu. II suffira done h cet enfant,
pour recueillir, qtk'il sfe Hpuve fetre I'ain^ des enfants mWes du dit Moses Hart,
vivants a son d6c6s, ou bienje seul enfant mMe vivant alors. Le syst^me coa-
traire est insoutenable ; il condufrait m§me k des consequences absurdes, comme
on peut s'en convaibcre par i'hypoth^se sulvante. Suppospns que Moses Hart
ait ea deux enfants m&les en 16gitime mariage, et quel'ainfi soit mort avant lui.
Dans le systeme des Appelants, le second de ces deux enfants, survivaht k son "
p^re, ne pourra pas recueillir, parce qu'il aora «u un fr^re ain6. Copendant
celui-ci n'aura lui-m&me rien recueilli, parce- qu'il sera mort avaiit son pere.
Qui recneillera done en pareil cas ? ce sera ou un enfant m&le, ou une fille,, ou d'-
Ezekiel, ou deSBenjamin, ou d' Alexander Hart, peut-^tre mftme une ifiUc de Moses
Hart le grey6,fet oependaht celui-ci aura laiss6 un enfant m&lo I Nous yoilA ddnc,!
dans ce systftme, en pleitae contradiction avec les termes du testament et en pleiiie
opposition k I'intention du testateur. Que Ton reiparque encore que la condition
est : Si le dit Mqses Hart, d6c6^e "fans enfant m&le ne ou k naltre."^ S'il jaisse
un enfant m&le/ni&ine.^ naltre, la condition est done remplie, et cet enfant est''
done appel6, ^le, seul ap^el6, bien qu'il' ait pu avoir un frero ain6, mais qui
serait pr^eced6. ' ' „ "

II faut done appliquer le m6me raisbnnemenlrau legs particulief dont il s'agit
dans cette cause, et qui forme le Je artiofe du testament. Ce legs port6 substi-
tution au profit de celui des enfants m&les dfl Benjamin Hart; qui, au d6c6s An,
pAre, se trouyera 6tre le plus &g6,, encore qu'il ne soit pas le premier n6. L'ln-
tim6 est dans ce cas j il avait un fr^re ainS, il est vrai, Aaron Philip Hart, mais
ce frfere ain6 est mort longtemps avant son ri&rft

.^3h--

COUtt DU BANC DE LA REINE,, 1868.

/

/

Lo testateur^rds avoir f^it un
nomm6 808 qflatta

31

^

montaires sen deux fils MosefotTe^ T ' n'u P"""" **^'^"*«"™ *««^-

t,ce de..x mois apres la niort de 8o,i auteur. ^ '"''' '" J"'"

Le dernier inoyen invoqu6 en.ai>Del et mt'il i„« .a

famine. ,^p.,,c„.Ll „„. » r„L„nT/. n ""J'"""'' '«'«l»«l«"«

d'avoir des rcwstres authnntin... ' ^^ * P'^'™'^ a"x Juift

cata de tpus actes do raaria^ro ^1^ . i *'*"*^™ "° '^gi^tre en dupli.
e8t d6clar6 que toutl irS^ /^ r^' """'"''*^ ^* «'P«^*"-'' Puisil

I'nutprit. de ce nouvel acte 8e '^ ^T '^^^^^^^^ «"x>gistres tenus sous'

(Sect. 13) " qbo <lans tou8 J^i^ ZsZ i ' ''' ^^" '« ^""^

te8tanteou co„grlgat,o„, ne pounlJe Ts C L :;"" Tn'"' '^'■" ^'^

tenu, rien dans cet acte ne sera .>«n.A «'^f T f' ^ ®° *""^ P»8 6t6

des bapt..es, .ariages IZ^uZl^^^^^^^^^ '"^'^'^ ''^ '^^'^ '* P-"-

gistreBdefapilIe.ouparautr's Tv^ f S^r,^^^^^ ^^^"^ «" '^-

t.o».Hdve..e8le droit do d6truire ouV^J^trtl 6^;^^^ rWant pa,.

bntanniques, doivent avoir toqt le b6n6fice dTlr • T "" '^"'^ «"J«»»

d6claratoire' de la l^re' Guil 4 Til ^ !««, d'autent plus que I'acte

census, con'sid^r^s et ^ar^^f co™.; "^^nt ^"'''* "' '"' '^'^•*' «» --* ,

des autres sujets de B:i^TlS^^:^^' ^'*^ ^* P"^'"^^- ^

interpretations et fins quelcdnqLes etc7 Test olT? i*""^' '°*'"''°"«'

ava.t pa. aux Trois-Rivi^res de r^ristres do I't T-I . ' "' '*"'""« *1°'" "'j

^ le jndaismo ; I'Appelante Mar, mSv en '^U . '" P'""""^ ^^'^'^

'formollo dans la caTse. De-l?ia nlo^f,!, f « "^°»«.donn6 une admission

Hartd'aller4New.YorW:ire o„Lr^^^^^^^ trouv. Benjamin /

religieuse la naissance de ses enfanTs T. " *'" ^' ** '°"ffJ^«»«°° • '

donn6 m^me sous Bermept^rai L^^'igi^ '" ,* un certificat danst causj^
"the minister of the con^^:"„"^'^^^^^^^^^ «*- M- Lyons s^disJSL
avoir en cotte quality la Se d^ 'S^l H '" **"' ''*^ "^ Ne^York," et
res, appartenant A cett^ i^Xl« cT^^rrT'^ '"'""««' *>* '^P"'^- ^
r^str^ lequ^l const,te .SC; ^^^ S^" ItT V^ ^

avril 1813. Wl^I; V;rdr;f l'^^^^^^^^^ «* ''^--^ '« S

ce qu»exige notre statut de 1853, ch"^ % If l, ^**" P*" "°»'"*>"°.« ^
rens/Iit toutes les conditionsUt oar ".i! I ? m T"^ *" *'°"*'^'« ?«'«««» '

*cri,aud^irdel4 7ese:tt;.^^;XTenCV^^^^^^ ^* ^'"^ P"

eertificat serait d^fectueux. la ;,..;! Cf^^ ^^^ f^" .^»" ^° '"ppoynt- que ce '

VeCtttby
Hut.

M.

%.,

^h, par d'autres parSTTdoSr^^^^^^^^

•— -/■'

\

«b.

■tr

-K

82

COUR DU BANC DE LA REINE, 18fl^.

V

.ni V r ''"l'.^" y/'P'- ^^^2- 1"* '•^ '"* "^'y*""!" "«rt a fait du4errain
• en q..„,^,on A ho„ frore Moso, Hart, e.i intorVenu le dit/Aarc,. Philip I „rtn
.es ra, ,,. .1 „> e..t pas dil quMl est lo fil, do Benjamin. Mais 11 / int^vion
pburgaranurlavontoavocson p6ro. Quel motif aurait done 60 1^'^
.on oncle. do le fuiro ainsi intorvontr, sM n'avait pa, ^t6 son neveu a lors o Su
a.n,a„ ve,,d««r.? .Moses U«rt d.vait%on„aitr^cs enfants de son fZ et on
f^H«pa,„«,„torvenir Aaron Philip Hart ^..Vtedevento, ii le rocollu
par cela memo pour 6tre alors le flis ain6 do son f.^rc, o habile TZZm/

ruun.r contre 1 6vo„ement. par lo pr6d6c6s du difc Aaron Philippe I'ouver
^nn^i..e. du^ari^^HeClr '^^^^ ^K 1^! i^"*" T

. ^% .;^ -Jt Nteonnaissanc? du maria^o de son frore Betrja
^ . V • ^aron Philip, et uno telle roponnaissance fa

(P. a L. cj F. W. T.)

--t-4-

. -; :> ^r— -

if .

. [jamin et de la uaissartce do son fils

lip, et uno telle reponnaissance fait rfreuve , contro les d6fflt,d«.,«.

iZ rr: r aefoT "^^ -' - ^-auu^ pL,ue V^^J^^
invo^ue lo susd.t acto de fente, par son exception p6remptoiro. Il'y a plus
cost que ce manage et fcette nai^sance sont admis par la dite Mar>McOarthv
dans la seconde partie de son exSption. Voici cole elle s'y eSe N«
d.^ Mary McCajthy^n ses dites q„alit6., ditde plus, que Aaron Sp'na
6cu,e^ avoca., de la cite de Montr6al, 6tait et est lifant mftle afn^udu
leg.t,ale marmfee de Benjamin Hart avec Harriet Judith flartAe deux der
niers nommis^enla d^clpation du dit demandeur " W ^ '

M. Dumouhn n^jSiW'notaire, dit dans son tWignage : " Je sais que Ben-

jamm.IIart,aprosson ™^iage ^ New-York aveo HaTrief Judith H^rt Tt v^u

^ STaT t":;«'^'^- «* « - P'-ie-s enfants dont Aaron pii^J S

"ja^n rttaltl:^"^^^^^ '''''-'' '''' '^ ^^^ ?- »« ^-"'e <^'oB:.

v^j:z::^^t' V' T ''''"p «-' -t^^c^d^ w son -

pere, eia.it mort en 1841, et son p6ro sculement eh 1862 * - /

' f ? *r\' ^T! 'r""'' '^'"'^ '^'^"^'" f«>t P«r Caroline et Adolphus M. Hart
enfan .d'EzoUl,^ I'effetque Aaron PhUip Hari,6tait^d6c6d6 avantson^6^ "t' '
que rr„t,m6 6tait, a la mort ae,celui=ci, Ic plus 4g6 de sesZ X^l

r :^^ ^ eir '- -^^^^^^^^zi
l^'aiin.^-^

Dyestcla preuve de TIntim6 est safBsante sans ces a Jal Sis

,_ 4. ^<«or«, poj,*4!Appelant.

Barnard, pour V]ntim&. , ' ' " _

-^A^

..•! ■ ,

■^'

I '• .

^-.-^

COUR DU BANC DE LA REINE, 18fi8.

88

^^ ' "'^ APPJBL BU DISTBICT DK QUEBKC.

9^*BB0, 13 SEPTBMBRB 1888.

C».» sir L. n. U„.x„„^ B.„, J. ,„o., Auw.,, i. D„«^ ^, C.„,, ,.

JAMES DOUGLAS, J

A^ • ■ ^

i^ppelant,

' at •
HENRY .DINNING,,

RATIWOATION D. TITRB-^OTION ,N OABiKTI..

Tntimi.

toujour, m MouellUe et mttatemia *"* '"'°'*""*'' "' "««««"• wtion ei, prnTMr*

Sir L. n. Lafontainb, Bart^ J. C. /*^ '

Le 22 dct. 1865 ve„t« par PAppeJant i I'Intipo d'une torre .\in^ A «
port, pour lo prix de £3500 ; et le 13 ffivrier 1858 vT» T ^ ^"'"■

.n6n,e terro par ri„ti™6 au „omm6 John C^Jal^^r ''f' '^ '*
£2900, avoo stipulation expresse do irarantie Lm / P**" '^P"^ ^^^

emp6chen,ent8 gdniralemeot quelconS Ij! « *"7« t««^ Vpoth^que. et'

^? And with aView oi ^..^^^^f^'^^Jl^ «^'H?«on .nivante :
«(^t charges and.ineumbrancef. it rirebv "« " " ^'"'^"'^ ^"""^ *"

. t. e said parties that the said John nldr^'^ '^Ti^^^^^^ '^*'.^»

for a ratification of his present deed ^PuXe t^^ ,k ^ « """»«d'«t«'y ««•
Lo,er Canada, sitting at Quebe. a^fS^pTaat wEl .^r ^^
and If any opposition should be madeagainst the skid r^tS' J t ^•'•««»««.
the vendor or hia auteur,, he the said^ dt shaKe ^^^^^^ ^' "' *''"*"«''
.to be removed at his own costs and dili^rcrwTth aS „ !? '*'"^ '''^"^«

until suchjudgment of ratification shlTave b nlS ^f"'' '' ""^ *''''*
shaU »otbe bound to pay any pL of the pXe ^^^^^^^ ^^^^

Le ler ^pt 1856. Galbraith den»nda L lettres doTal^^^* . ^
■demandedeux oppositions furent prtsentfies, iCe dot ^f^^'r' ^, ^"'
pour la so..e d« £8600. montant d'un caulnne Jnt X^^^^ :

janvier 4854, par PAppelant conjofntement avec le^fr^^^" "' ^^
de la part de G. B. Hall et son 6^use ; .ivl^^::T,^:t'it 'T^
mo». il demanda la permission de produire InimA™ ^ « 8 du mftme

conserver,maiss.n»VecUmerdvSoI iTTr.r "P^*^'"^" *«» ^^
.a qp'i. se pr^ntait ap Jle t^li^Ti^L^'Ty'' ^'."r ^« fi-^-^-
X»Intim6 W ensuite ifiterverfu daw I. n!!! P^""»"«° ^"^ ^"t »cco«I4e
braitl^anx fin^de contesterT^^^ op!^' ^7 *"""* '"""^ ^'^ «*'"
FAppelintetlemettreen cause coml S'^*, TT- '""^^^^^^
«5tion en garantie centre oe dernier eflTd/r* ^"" *^ "**"** ""^
ditaJeflferyeiHall. . °^"^ ^ '«* <^*»«»S'»nt »«• OppoaUJons d«.

L'Appelant n'apas contests I'aijtioD, de Liiire o'u'all* a Atj. • ^.
«r p-rte. ^ Ce jugement qui eat eo datia^T^^^ ''^'*« ** J^^^^

Pe«jugen.entaatnte.jet^appe^ p^^^,,„.^

■J

* . *

/.

Y

i.\

84

DonglM
Dinning,

COUR DU BANC DE LA REINfc, l|j

en demnndo de lettre. do ratlfloatJon, il nV . d„ n,„ V if, '

On »M nrfirae jUMu'A dire de 1. nJ H i.a ^ , ?^*'*"' *" «*"n«e.

. • toujour, continue d'etre Je«;„eu^K '*""'

•Utnt de 1861, ch. 60, . 2 * '^ '^'"»' ' *»'« P" '«

^.Stipulation exprj^u^ S^^ i^^^ ^ ^r ^ " ^^ '
Galbraith «, trouve dan. oe ca. vi^i-vi, de t^n V T ^^. ! ' '* '^^l"*""*
^ut voit par la clau« de sor^tllZ 'I T*'*"' '^"'"*"«' ««"""« »«

Lr.»en' .iV:n n TantieZS ^*

mftnie action de.ait par cofJCp iT^t 4 D "''' ""''* '''""•''«•■ '*
vendeur, I'AppelanU' '^ ^ *' * ^'"7« *'*">»'« "O" P«>Pf<»

Je ne sau ce qui a pu 6tre d6cid* k Qaiheo - in^. 5- L • ' .^ «
r^n n;a ja^ai. ^^Ude difBcuH sur pS^J^^e^ T'r^rZ'''^ ^
d'accorder Paction en garantie.> Dds l'ann6o 1881 o^i ''f *"»"«".
.prd. I. promulgation du atatut de. lettre. ^ ratifiLl^Xl^'! ""T
V ui,e action engarantie de a part de Vimp^ZT^^i^'^^'^''''^
.tionAsademanie. Lotion futa.ainte'n,^e^,rve^J3^^^^^

oppo.ition A de. lettre^^e ratification. • toujour^S a^lt^STeT^^r^^^ ""

L'on i«ft^e> lettw. de ratification on bri. 1. pTace d« I 7 ^^""'•
dicrit volmtai^, dan. le but de mettre nn Xrenr 1?.. ! H V^'^'^ ^^
le. hypothdqueii d'une manidre moin. couteS. t «n 1 *"' ^**'"' P"««'

Uve. CW une formality .ub.titu Jl Tne aZ plTetT ^^ ?'^"" "^''■
a« titre 21 de la coutnme d'0rl6a«s p arNcTmlf "' ^
afin de conwrver, qu'on forme an d6^t,.]l.- J-' * ^' opposition,
^ire comm, le.*oppoeitiorafi deltrl tet^^^^^^^^ T'"^"'^"* («'-*'
au vendeur qUi e. doTd^fendre I'a qu2 e^^^^^^^

Guyot, au mot «,Ky^thdqae.« p. 67S, ^ de 1784 - T ^^' '" ^P" ^^^
(de. lettre. de latifiMtion) a I'eL dl 1^.«
o« de l'«,tion d-intel^pln- • ' *'"^"^'' *" ^^•''"•^'«'» d'hypoth^e

Grenier, dan. wn odmmentaire nr I'Edit de 1771. ed de 1787 n ^a
que : " le vendeur n'avait pas le temM de Dran.»« ^ ' ^' "' '*°^"-
cr^ancier. oppo«.nU. ; i, ,L c, JTa eL^e ^ ^U^^^^T "^ ^«'
on4.con.ignation: pour^viterrinconvita^^^ P']:;^-"
tion le 5 wpt 1788, enr6gi.tr6e au parlementTe 9 ian^w iTal °" '^*''*^
2, que l'acqu6Mur ne pourrs former LnTJ!! J ""'^" ^^ "*•
afin de Jn-lev.e ^Jlp^Z::,^:2PZm7:'^^^^ ~''
qu'aprd. quarante joum dTddlai. A compter I iot? f "^ ^' "^^ **'»'"^
ratification." C«tJ AA.x.^Jr.:JTF^' ^"^ ^T ^° '°^«° ^ea lettw d«
VB»H qeciaration ont doaafa-^t-wtfe, par (Jwnier A la fln d«

^•Tt

/^QPB DU BANG DK LA REINE, 1888.

. .l.p»l.r p., „™,p|,, .. . |.„ J„, pr...nt S!ri.,t^J#*:r , ""^ '?'
\> cier, comrau oux, do ces rente.. «t ..„, ^ Im-m6me quei crtan-

"1^71 II .••ri.. i A '""P'^t i*p'"i»>rt do H. di.p<»iti„„, i raiji J,

>ok,'*»CMd'opp<»i,Jo„.4™ JiLj .« !? ^ l«»<I"«'«"r.(lteul.

' W^ jiour I'Appefanf. ' ^ Jugement conflnn6.

4. «S<tiar/, conseil. '

^, * M»'' «< /n/ifw, pour I'lntimd.
(P.B.^.etF.w. T.)

!

IN APPBAI.

' FROM THE DISTRICT OPlfONTREAL.
MONTREAL, Ibt SBPTfilitBBR, 1868.

AMD

J. B. &ENBOAL. R Ai, (I^/«,d«.to i. <»a ctmrt S,to«*0
JUDIOUL SALB— FBAOT).

tLLAVta.

Bmi^dmhw.

all««lth.tBo«,K„ignonUd^5.!l . T ^°r«»«"> • Pri"""'- They

«ndSil«L-Th. total of pSm !.t!^ "'°°''°""«*''""'<'i'«»«<li
Th.! ntTrr' . Flaintirs debt, miereat and oM wu ;««<i i. ,a

.\:

-■*

> ,

80

COUIIT OF QUKKN'S nEVCIf, I8«9.

OiilaM
Mental,

«*

rH on „„,^ c,„„tHv.„c«» of .ho I,„i,iff. and 8«„Ac». A I);„i..I. , j
S^nioal. „,ul Hud. frH«.lulo„t pr.,parHtio„H before h.n.l that apf.llan. Z.il^

cv2;, r ^ "'"« ''"•*'' "f'^-'J" "f ^'000. •"<' comprohondinr th.

S«„6cal know to bo ong to appellants ^" -"P««» «' ^''i- Pro-. L pp Ih u-^"

? malt 1" 'm '"' r "' r ■'"'"« ''"" '""^« *'^''""* 4 "J-rvanTo U.
form«|,t,e, of law, an.l a. being ,uper non Jomino, and fraudulontiySntrivJ

ihe declaration concluded that' the cylinder p/cM\,hould be adiudirod .l.«

••xu'a^tf"' "ir ,r ""'^"™ -"'•''"" «^ '^«''o'''' St: ,K

with costs against any of the defendants contesting thi. action " and tim. th«

SnZrrj^wr''"'' t ^^r-^r^-v^^^^^ J't^itrdet: ':

otienuant or any of them whom It may concern to mvo it im tl,n» «, » ■

c^ault,. should be condemned to pay p^^intiff Xfl5oXSead oli !» t'in^

the value theroof; the plaintiff reserving, etc., etc., ;to. X ^ ' ^ "*

The do onr|«„t fyled several appearances and denmrrers. and sevoral nieas «„ .

upon her demurrers (all very nearly alike) the Superior Cou f (M^ J^^^^^^^^

lo. II n'oxisto pas do dcmande en nullity de ddffr.t en mat!6ro mobili^re
20 La null.t6 d'une rente judiciaj^e d'objets mobilier. ne pout 6tro pZuivie "
par une action du gehro de c<lle-ci. «- "*ro poupuivie

30. Les dcmandeurs all^gunnt que la ve,.te dc la presse en question 6tait "
nuUo et do nul effot. leur action no pouvait avoir aucnn objot Ll iU nt
vaient aucun int6r6t A la porter sous cctte forme. ^

40 Si la vonto do cctte presse iStaft d'ane rtullitd absoluo ainsi oue l« r..A
ten «.ent.csDemandeurs.eIle.'ava,t pu avoir Peffet de r: dTlI Cr
tit e de propn6t6 et cette action „e pouvait computer en leu« porsonnes

tai::;rS::^^;^^^^'^-^- '- ^-- of.saac bU-^i, ;on-

50. La seule bAso plausible de c^tto action serait I'allLfi do fraudo et la
.d6darat.o„ „c po.tant aucune accusation de fraude, centre llr6 cnrdSdlr '
Paction devait k tout 6v6neihont 6tre d6bout6e quant & lui \

In appeal Jb,cpA Z%„^r6 for the Respondents argued : ,

deir^intfrS ^-^--^'^^^--^'^ -plusqned. V
^o^.~Dict. de procedure, vol. ler.. vo. Action posa^re Noa. 65 «t 00 ^
POTHUB, vol. 4, Possessioii, No. 93, p. 563. . "^ '

B»MM,^t)roitd,Pf>H,HPHinn,Nn.2yg"p.80^No.iU.^^^^ ■'

._u,_.

I

• *

f • WfiipBI;

COUUT OF QUEEN'8 HKNCir. tSftS.

t7

ApHi'"^"*""" "" "^ '" ■"' '' '"""''• "* ''*'!"'•* i"v..";;,*o7 par I..

|io. Quo l«« fdu «ll6g.i*. o„ IH d6uJ«r«tio„ no pouvait .lounor li.u k ..noVutr.
urtion qu'4 Itt rovon«lio«(i(in.
rornjKH, vol. 4, Propri6t6 No. 208, p. 400. . '

I ORCKT.— Iruit6 (lu8 AotlOMB, pu. 40-4(\ 80-8^-82. -^
BoNOicNNE.— rroc6duro Civile, vol. l^p. 62. .

^ JoT.iiK«, vol. 4, PH>prl6t6, No. 800, p. 4fi0, Nos. '802, 800, 318, 328. 3fi4,

^ ■; R.kacK,t^ for tho Appollonta argucl that it wm ino.t corfect to innitido a
direct aot.o« to I.hvo the fraud declared and the con«o<,,,ent nullity and to have
the «.le ««tv>de which had a form of legal sale; that wi.ie revendioation ~
would ha^^Otten improper against Joan B. 8<Sn6eal and would not have oht/ned
^HUce a^,u,t the Bailliff nor yet against Boyrguig^on and it wa.' Dot.Ph,intifr. ,
^«eiIl?tly..agftlMt8*n6onland.Daniol<A«ir/MMw. .

The AppelIanU>^ued that their' action was m fftneri, not complainte nor
acUon po»,»o.re but on« of the Action, Paulienne, oUhc Digest (Tom. 2,
I onjean pp. 163-164; Ubahlon tom. 2, p. 360) and they "cited the following
o her auth..nt,o« m favour of direct action as brought. Erskine'a Prino. of-Law
of Scotland, p. 466._t1«uiHian* Kep. vol. 14, p. 101 afld Condensed Rep. vol. 3.
p. 677.— L. C. Rep. vol. 6, p. 480. • ,

Against course by .a/«V, rtvendication against 86n6cal the puroliaser, Merlin

' ^on 666 •* ~^ " *^''''"'* ^''" '*"^"' ^^*"*"'' * '^""'"'^ *°™' ^ '^''"'-

Lafontais«,C. J., rendering Judgment said: \ ' *, '

Lc8 Demandeurs ont 6t6 d6"bout68 de leur Action suruilo difeMe aufond$ tu
droit. , ' 1 /

Oette actiod otait dirigde conlre: ' , /

lo. Joan Baptiste 86n6cal, sellier ; /

• 2o, • Chrysologue S6n6cal et Frin^ois Daniel, inlprimours nssociis : ' '
8o. Isaac Bourguignoo, imprimeur ; \ /

4o. ChariM Lapierre, huiasier. \ ^

CiHiifitlin^rbcis des alligufis de la declaration des Demaftdeurs :
lo. En verlu d'un Bref d>x6oution 6man6 de la Cour^do Circuit, 4 la requdte
du dit Isauti Bonrgj^ignon contre les deux as8oci6»^en6<lal et Daniel, le dit

.... =>r o — ■"'• "o"* i»»iH»uio»^one«fai ei uaniei, le dit

^Jiuis-sicrLapierre pj|()c6da, le 27 F6vrier dernier, 4 4 liear|« de I'apr^s-midf, 4
la 'V boutique et bureau d'aflFaires" dea dita associ^s, 4 8ai«ir et prendre en ex6- '
cution, comme appartenant 4 ces derniers, divers meubles ' entre autres " une "
Presso 4 cylindre de Hoe & Co., de New-York, et tons ses appareils ; »

20. Le 0 Mars suivant. 4 midi et demi, lo dit huissior proc6da 4 la vented
effiats ainsi aaisia, ot vendit le tout au dit J.-Bte. Sen6cal ;

3o. La dite presse et sea appareila sont encore dans I'endrbit od ils ont et6
aim saisis et vendus, et le dit J. B. Scn^cal pr6tond eu 6tre maintenant le prg.
nnetaira on vontn Ah «^*»> ^./.t — j-. -.. . *" ■ r- ^^

-pd6i

i^tOTdttrreRtrf

4o. La, dite presse etsea appareib 6taient, avant et 4 Li date des dites'saisi

saisid

w=

I: I'

n

COUdT OP QUKEN'H BENCH, I8«8.

-■

\

vent« • Aa J \.Tf' ? "^ ^ cjriliuiro, soulo, valant X680: la did*
vento a, (le p|„^ 6t6 faito k ..no houre Inaccoutumio, -aioir A ,„idi «f d« i ! '
lor,q«e I«, ouvrier, do Ron6caI ct Dani.l 6talont abaontll' lour h1„ 1 ' f

"er qu. pr6t«it «.n aide aux JiU a«,oci6s 8on6cal «t Danio T Ml ^ ""

gation de lour en fair* ci.«in„ i ' ^""'« « * ''»' P"*, ct .1 e«t de plus sous I'obli-

Uditoprel • """' F^tond ma.ntonant Atre le propri6tairo do

Dat:l^ql?::'^:rd:„r-^^^^^^^^^ ^ ••-pUonde.as^oci.^Sen.calet
d6fon.el„ droit o Zd^feL n fafT ^T ''"''^^' "'"*'«"* ""«
d6fen»e8 en droit, B 8«rde ,elLr " • "' T' ^" '" ™''°^"^ ^"« ^" '
dit J. B. Son^cJ; lel^f '*'•''' '" ""~"" ^o»°^«- ^ l'«I>P«i de celle da r

" la-Parceque lo» Sits domandeur. n'alldgtiont pas sous

il. ^ r^rnfnnt inu^.i^Uh.. de l^l^ A Cyhndrereo iraSs'

quellea conditioqi

en ques*

.::3r"-

COURt OP QlJKRN*S BRNCII, I8oa.

* , . ._

s»

tlon, li cW coiiiiiia mmniU'*, c<>iuiii« propriAtnirat imlivia ou Mutromant, ot n«
font voir niKuin rH|>|K>rt l«,kl untrc «ux |h>ur m |>ort«r oomino UU propri6tair«i,
ot fnfrU't III pr6»»'ntn m)ii«iiiX ,„j

••2«».-l'«ri;«.pril n'oxUii |>m, «>»• no|re. droit, do tdle action qu'unt'
<lt.|»iind«, on nnllitd do d^orol «n mAtit^re mohiHArt."
f " 8(».--l'Mrt«..|ii« jtt iiullitd ti'uno vents AiroAo d'objett inoWlium ne ptiut tsirt
I'objot d'uno Action dir.Hiio. oomni.! U pri^iitint*).''

" 40.— Parco.pm I«h <|ita Durnandisitm all^guant ens m6me« on leur dito
D.'tdlMration quo In v«nt« in*>ntionnAa coinmo aynntflu lieu lo nouf Mara dernier,
d« la .lito " l'r.,M« k (jylindro d« Hoe A Co., da Now-York, et totii .ea appa-
reilV eat nulio el do mil offot, lu pr^itenta action no pout avoir auoun objot
Wgal, ct loR diu Donmndoura n'avaiout et n'ont aiiuun intdr^t 4 h portar aoua
• la ()t)rnie aoluotlJii.'^ /~"

" ao.— I'arqwiuo In niillitd aImoIuo do la dIto Tento all6gu6o par lea diU
DoniandoiirK n'ayant pu avoir TefEot lAgal do lea d^poaaddor do leur titre da
propridt6, la pr6aento action no pouvait (!omi)«ter on leura poraonneai"
. «' ao —Parcoque loa diU Deinandeura n'all6guant pa* une fraudW concortie
cntr.) tea diU l)6(bndeur», le« diU DoinandourH ho pouvaient l6gHloinent porter
lour action contro diff^rentea p^raonnw, contra loaquellea ila n'alliguent auoun
lien comraan d'action." '#

L.' jugemont n'eat pan motiv6 ; lo Jugo a'eat 'contont6 do dire : " Maintiont
1«« ditea d6foniuj« en droit plaid6e« par lc« dita DAfendoum roNpectivomont, on
coim*quonco i!«boiJt« I'acticMi dea Demandoura, avoc dfipona diatraits on faveur •
do MeasiouralDoutro et iMtouat, avocaU dea diU Difendeura."

II mo Hemble que lo jugomont est orron6 ; lea ddfenafia on droit n'auraiont
pan(ift 6tro raaiiitenuea, ni Taction d^boMt^o in limine. Lea alWguta do la
declaration aont aufflsanta pour juntifior Taction et lea concluaiona, a'ila aont
4lat)lia en fait. Une vento faita-on apparorico aoua forme do juatico, inaia rAol-
lemtrnt faito par frauile ct collusion, comme lea Demandeurs pri6tendoiirt que
collo-ci Ta 6t6, n'eat pas plua oxempto d*6tre attaqu6o par un tiera, victimo de
cette fraudo ot do cctte colluaion, que tout autre vonte frauduleuae. II no doit
pas 6tre parmis de dfcpouiller ainsi un tiers do sa propri6t6, Celui-ci doit avoir
un moyen de m fairo rendre justice. " Ce n'ost pas aeulomont par dea actcs," •
dit Chafdon, no. 62, " c'eat aussi dans des inatauces ot par dea jugomont* con- .
oerti-es, que par foia la fraude parviont k ae preparer lea moyena de nuiro k dea
tier*; quelle que spit )a aurvoillance du ministere public et dea Jngea, trop aou-
veiit CO scandalo ae renouvello'dans lea tribunanx." (1) Cea actoa judiciairos
ainni entach^a do fraude, peuvont, dana certaina caa, 6tre atUqu^s par la tierce
opposition. Dana d'autrea, on pent employer la voio directe pour exeroor cette
actioD.

Capmat,'' de la r6vocatioh des Actes'*, p. 100 no. 86: " U n'est done paa
douteux que Taotidn pauHonne a'appliquo, choz nous, m6rae auz jugomente qui
d6pouillcralent le dfibitour, et qu'il aurait laisad rondre contra lui, en colludant •
; tiyad BOB adveraairea.** p. 104, no, 78.

t^ ■!

va.

(I) Morlin, anx mots " Opposition (Tierce) " {.a^

40

COUliT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1858.

Onimet

8«lltMl

y

d^pouiller injustc^cnt „'„ .i.rs de sa p^opri^/ ' ''""""' '^ """'^'^ ^
The Jadgment in Appeal was recorded as follows :

/ ««^itjuge™e„t.savoirlejug^Sr;o^j "eTi^^^^^^^

rieure si^geant & Montreal." ' ^ '* '''** ^°'"" Sup^-

- ' ■ •. . . ■ .

irac*ay,fe^tt,rt„, for Appellants. Judgment reversed.

Doufrfl <fc 2?aotwt, for Respondents. .

ja:M.,j.D.&p.w.T.) ^ : ^^ o

L_ ■■ i*^-^ - ; ■

■ - . . • ;- ■ - ^ ■ t ; . - ----^

' ^ COtJR SIJPERIEURE.

MONT EBAL, 4 MAI 1862.

„ Coram Dat, J., Smith, J., Mondblet, J.

r . i No. 028. .

Exparte Oeorge Hart. ^

bemg jthe amount set forth as the purchase money of the ll„d s«t foT ^'
.^^e de cent louzs cou„.nt. montant de son prl. d'acquisiti;;;^^^,!^;!

^

♦

%

f

COUR 8UPERIEURE, 1862.

41

«' Bans ddposer I'intArot sur icwlle somme depuis le jour de son' acquisition &

*' vcnir au jour de son d6p6t en cette cause, savoir depuis le 4 aoftt 1947 au 21

y octobro dernier suivnnt le ccrtificat ci-annex6, lequel int6r6t se monte & la

•• somme dt! £26 68. 8d., quoiquo par la loi jl 6tait tenude cei faire el que par

'"sa motion fcite en cotte cause le vingt-et-un octobro dernier il a deinand6 acte

' du d6p6t do la dite somme do £100 courant avcc int6r6t, eorame a'il cut

^ " deposd I'interfit sur son dit prix d'aoquisition tandis que le dit Requ6rant n'a

I' depoif(§ qup la somme de £100 courant, et partant n'a pas d6poB6 tout son

*• dit prix d'hcquisition ; le dit pr6tendu d6pot fait en cotte cause le vingt-etrun

*' octobrc 1851 soit declar6 irregulicr, nul et de nul effet et comme non,avenu

" le tout avcc depus." Apres audition ; cette motion ftit renvoyee sur le prin-

cipo qu'un acquoreur n'est pas oblig6 par le statnt provincial 0 Geo., 4 ch. 20

/le d^poser Tinterfit de son prix d'acquisition. „

. Lejugement est motiv6 comme suit: - ' . • .

" The Court having beard the Opposant Francois Perrin and the Petitioner
" George Hart, by their Counsel, upon the motion of the said Francois Perrin
*' of the 12th April last, that the deposit of £100 currency, made by the said
" Geo. Hart, as price of the land, be declared irregular, inasmuch as the inter-
" est stipulated by the deed and to be paid, is not also deposited, examined the
•' pwceedings and having deliberated, considering!' that tlu Interest on the said
*' sum of £100 is no part oj the price of the said^ land, doth dismiss the said
*' motidn with costs." '

.^, ^1. «^ 6^. i2o6«r^(on pour Geo. Hart.
/*. iJ. Za/r«ioye, pour Francois Perrin.

Ftde 6 L. C. Repi, p. 390, ifiwion VB. B/anc*ard,
P.R.li. ' _;

MONTRBAL, 24 OCTOBRE 1868. '

• BW VAOAirCB.

" Coram C. MoNDBLET. -J^

'■■ ! ' N0.8B4. • ( ■ ' ■',

--■■ Macdonell, et ah, VS. (Rollins. '

:' \. LocATAiRS — Expulsion. ' ' ' *

'^^\r^^'^ Iwataire qui ne doit qu'un muI tenne dc loyer pcftt btn expuW en vertu de la 18 Vie,
ciu. 108 see* 8 p&r* 4* "^

Lo D6fendeur ayant 6t6 poursuivi en vertu de I'acte des locateurs et looataires
pour quitter les lieux louds sur rall6gu6 qu'il 6tait dft auxDemandeurs £61 lOs.
montant du quartier de loyer 6chfl le ler aoAt 1867 en vertu d'un bail notari6
re?H devant Mtre. Isaacson le 17 Janvier 1867 et n'ayant pas contest^, la cause
fut inscrite au m6rite «x|>or<«. '

hn, seule question qui futsoumise k la consideration de la cour 6tait de savoir:
si uii locataire pouvait 6tre expuls6 faute de paiement du loyer pour moins de
trois termes. '7

Le jugement fut rendu en feveur des Demandeurs, mais il n'est point motir6.
A. <6 G. Hober'lson, ponr les Demandeurs.

(P.E.L.)

pour le D6feBd^Bi^

M.

42

COUR 8UPERIEURE, 185?.

m

MONTREAL, 29 MAI lass.

Comro 0. MoNDKLiT, J., % ' ■

No. 18.

. ■ ' ■ f

Laaroix VB. Prieur.

' MaISOS— ACHKTKDB— toOATAIRJ.

-lafr^"""," cause le Demandeur a poumivi le D6fendeur, le 2 septembre
1867 pour lasomme de£32 9s. «d.. savoir: £30 pour le loyer de IWe

cette propr,6t6 par la corporation de Montreal pour I'ann^e alors courante

Le Demandeur alI6guait: qu« le D6fendeur a occup6 depuis le ler Mai der^
n,er au douze du mfime mois 4 titre de locataire et avec 1. Jermissiou de i^e
Am6ha Hopper veu.e Stevens, de cette cit6, u«e n,ai8on en brfques 1 d^
^^^es; ara:sonde£86parann6e delo,erpa,ablechaq„en,ois,::^Lt"

Que la valeur annuelle de la'dite maison et d^pendances, JHLD^es oar
le Bfifendeur 6tait et est encore d'au moins la dite somme dWlSJ IZ

' IW '*^*' '"''f '""' '"P"'*' '" '^^"^ P'*' '* coT>oration de MonS pou" '
1 ann6e courante, lesquell^s cotisations se content i £2 9s. 6d., comnt

Sh?r"f . • f /'"f r ^" *''™*' '" Demandeur a^cquis \1 dite maison du
wl f':^^ ^' ^"*'^^^ ' ""^ '^"** qu'ena faitece dernier en Zult
Wde F.^,,«,„, ,^^ 6man6 de cette cour. contre la dite Dame ^n^S

Que le demandeur est en consequence de la dite acnnJn^n ^Pper v^anada.

air" "• Tr;° " ""'-' ^'"""' - srz ':nj:o::::

dicelJe a compter dudit jour 12 Mai dernier. . « 'es xoyers

Que le d^fendeur a continue d'occunpr la Ait.^ ™„: •

ou vers le 27 aoflt dernier, et depuis. le ditdefendeur a enlev6 tons les mlZl

Mai prochair "" /^^""""^T ' '^^^P^^' <^« ^<^-^ ^ai dernier jusqu'au ler

LeDemandeur concluait aiWnation d'un writ de SaiWe Gagerie par drcrit
de suite et au paiement de la susdite somme de £82 9s 6d ' ^

en tf^^fl""^'" ' P!"^-^ ^ "'"' "*'''**° ""« exception'et u'ne defense 4u fends
en fait. Son exception est en substance cdmme suit : Que le 6 Mai* 18671* '
due dame TToppord/^olnraau d6f.ud.ui qu^elle aliait mettre liL A ]a s ^^^^^^^^

/^

\>»>->,,

couR suPEBiEuiterMstr*

ierallleunet

^^ 48

i dite maJBon en payant le montant de la ortance pour laqueUe la «^»i» »r,A*

pour elle par lWre.i« de quel,uWi. ct I, et ^^^2^7^^"^^^
^d^ dame Hopper oaa au d^fendeur acceptant,la maij et. q«e^"^„
^space de temps q«, devait .'6conler de ce jour \k au jour de la\en JdeS
ina..on 8ur le p,ed de £3 par mois sans autre charge et il fut Ik et Ir^ con
^ entre la dite Dame Hopper et le d.feude^ que si d L ( dUedr;
Hopper) devenait acqu6reur« de telle maiBbn kn d^crAt. qu'alors et dans tel c«
le d^fendeur pourrait conUnuer-i. I'occuper k raison dei^pai^motlTa 1"
elle ne devenait point acqu6reure quo lui (ddfendeur) aurait^AfaireSsconSn
iivec I'acqufirenr et ,1 fot convenu que « 1. dite dame Hopper devenait a^ul
reure A d^cret elle n'aurait au reste droit k £s par mois qS'en const JsaS en
arn4w de la maison une cmsme pour Pusage du D6fendeur, et que«.n. celi le "
DAfendeur pourrait quitter l^s lieux.

Que le D6fendeur a pris possession del. maison en questio'n le SMal 1857 '
et la occup6e ju^qu'au 12 du mfime mois 6poque i laqvlelle le Demandeur en
est devenu propri6taire. u vuiauucur «n

.w"lT'*!?^,'*' ^"''*?*""'^'*«"-^"*"»"d«ve9upropri6taire,le D6fendeur
set adressfiilm pour obtenir «n bail dei lieux, maisque leiemandeur a
refus* en^disant qu'jl pensait ne point rester propri6taire «" «

Que le D6fendeur a 0CCUB6 Iav«te maison jusque vep. le 27 aoAt 18*67 et
qu en les qu.ttan^ savoi^ : le on vers le 80 ^U 1857 et avant I'institution de la

courant pour trois mo« et vingt jours de jouissance et occupation de la Z

SeTrT; T ^"^°" '^P"'" '^ '' ^" ^««^ inclLemen u 1
Septembre de la m6me ann^e, mais^que le Demandeur H refus6 dVcepter tela
offres en disant qu'il avait droit k une ann^e de loyer

Que la valeur de la jouissance etoccupation de la dite maison n'a6t6 aux dites '
fipoques tout au plus que de £8 (1) par mois et qiie mfeme cette slme ttl
trop 6 ev6e, vft que cette maison 6tait pour ainsi dire inhabitable I loTde t
dTs^avT^^^ ^' '' '* quantity dW qui sWumulaU corZnte"

AmlJn^^^'"^"*; °'* ^"^' ^""^ '* '^^'^ ""«»" P°" '^"^ *°»6« »i de la dite
Amelia Hopper ni d'aucun autre.

Que de rexpo86 ci-haut il r^sulte en loi que lui (d^fendbur) no pent 6tte sujet

qu ,1 soit oblig6 de payer est celui d6 la jodissance et occupation de U dite
maison |)endant I'fipoque susdite. "uueiaoue ^

^consequence le D6fendeur conclut i ce que ses4>ffres soient diclarfies&nne.
etvalables pourle montant desquelles a 6tait pr6t A confessor jugement en
^Z:^^^:^' --"' avec d^penscontrT cedemier.eta^j:d::^

ni^f.t.!.^,?':.^,!"' ^T^ ^"t ■^'°^"'>°'' q"'>°tau titred'acquUition da
*; J! '*"*" *" ^"'^ q"*!*" Jb DeioMeur avait qultt6 la maison le 27 •

(IjSlC. ;.

Lamb
Vrinur.

>

X. ■■'^■■'^^

. ,r

44

cbUR StlPEHIEURE; 18

LmtqIi

^»

;ii':'

er .

/ Lo DemaMour ayant admis que le D6fc«lour lui avait fait les ofTros «m q^e«

,on c 30 aoftt 18^7. ce dernier examina doux t^moins quiprouvirJl^lW.

cu|.at.ondola,nai«6npouvaitvaloirannu6llementi;27 ' ' rent^eio*

' 'ii .J;LT' P'"^"'" W™ent a raainlonu le"" droit d'action du .Donmndour et'jui

" Mail858"'T" r^'^ -«'»'-* o»ti*rdu-^yer pour i'arfa4e.xpirant lei

■ ^»«'\858. ,Son action avaU6tMBi.an6olc4SSj5pterobro 1867.1 "

• r,rcSff«Ti'!^""'^.r ""'''•"'*•' ••?«»"diJ'-«»taue WeiBandourafah
, l>reuve de8.a%u6s essentiels de sa declaration, et nomm*mcnt que Jo Dofondeur^

■ sidTaTt ',rr"' '' TT '"'''"^^"^' "''"'"»^ ^*''"* ^» Bff declaration, con-

..7uf rrf«rfUrfr.to^.-^«rr««nrf..,„^.V..,attendA que le D6fcndc,ur a dogarni
Ics heux, eti transportolesmeublcset effets mobyiers qui garnissaient laSon
par lu. occupo, et cf6crjte en la d6olar^ation du DcmandeuPen une autre S^
idquelle est iuss. d6crite oh la declaration du Demandeur, condarane To D6fen- "

. • deur a payer au Domandeur Ja «omme do £30 du cours actuel pour je lover d«
Iann6e expiree le ler Mai 1858,avec'inter6t sur la dite somme k compter dn

^,^ septembro 1857, jusqa'a I'aotuelViSment ot aux 4eponp. ^

. Cherner, Doriont& Dorion, pour le Demandeur. - . " ^

ZeJ/anc- <£• Ca««rfy,poiylcD6fendenr. " • ' "" .'"

COtJR DE. CIRCUIT. ^ ;

MONTRfiAL.;iO NOVBMBBE 1858. ■ ''

° : Coram 0, MqNbStUT, J.. \ . - '.

■' . * '":'.''" No. 2885. t.,.' H ■ -^^ *";'

Deslongchamp,,pire, et al., ys.-Payehe dit St Jtmour.

OCCUPATION BANS BAIL— DURKB.

"M

>, „ /^« P'^«;"te action 6tait port^e ppur £0. p, 0. "balance rcst^ntdue po^r' ' '
. ^^^^ de. pr6m.sses abandonniea sans raison ni^rmiisjc^" ^

.^ r<2"^f ^^"'^T"'':?" connentement ot avec la i,ermi8,ion des Oemar^iv^
a occup6 4 compter du ler Mai 1^58 a vonir au dernier juillet 1858 i raLn
d une Ime par mo,s «n haut de maison, etc.. et qu'H^'a Inissfi quoiqu'il d6t

" 1 occuper jusqu^au mois de Mai 1859. ,tc., etc.. sa„« mison ni permission." ' "

^^ Q.^ la vjrieur du loyer pour I'usage et I'oocupation, etc., est de $li par
an tg^Pemahdfeura^ all6guaient qu'ils nvaient re^u £3. 0." 0. &' coftiDtc
Vaavofr, pour le4 mois de mai, jufn el juillet." . ' « -

N^tte demands etait aocompagn6e d'une sai8ie^^erU>^qai eut lieu n» dW>i^

dp uuikit

K - ■, >n*

^

,:J^!-\- -'t. ■/

■^r;-

^^

COUR DE CfRCUIT, 1868,

4

.<»,■

• ■ *"* — ■ ■ ■ — ' — ■ ( " ' ■■.■'■

Lo DAfcnJi,,rplaid«uno defense a« fond, b droit et uno d^n*gation g6n6rale. Do..o-«ol-»p.

Len t>aTMe« furent enton^ues tant sur la d6fefl^„ droit q&'-au m6rito le
,n.on,ojo„r Cetto d6fenBe en droit contenait Jes propo«itions"suiv,„te« j,ou
ro|.ous8erractibndo8 Deijkndeurs: • , -^ "i

lo. Kar^e que<1e8 Doraand^ur, n'all6g.,cnt poiril qu'ils 6tilieni ou sohtles^
rropnetaues, ou prmci^aux locataireB du haut dc inaison-^ *u<}ition ^

20. I arco. que les dits Dcmandeurs n^ay^gucnt p^int Boifc. antbail vodbal &u '
autre, mM une promesso pu ongakement du D6fendcur d'occuper lo dif baut de '
maison, pendant.un tcmiw queMmie, ct les conditions.

3a^Parc#quol^ditsDcih«ndem aliquant -euxrafemes que le dit IWfon.
deur leur a pay6 o montant dJ loj,,r . qu'ii dev.it: donnlr po«r iCl

r ^ * ?/r %^.f?' f' """T'^^ '""'^' no devait rien a^iVdits Dem!J: '
deurp, ot c est k topt^ili^galerteirt ei sans droit c^ue lee dits Demandeu^H>nt feit '
enianer Ik saisie-gagene dt i'actipd ^u'iis bnt fintanics ^t institutes.

A enqufite, les Demandeurs o.U^Arouv6 rO^agc'etTV^kJtupation ^es premisses. '■
^valeurannueleao cette occupation et Tabandon qu'en fit le D6fUur le
def^Dierjburd<}juiHet dernier. , •* ^ ■«, ^ ' , T "■ '®

-J* Cout B'appuyant sur k 16me, Clause M Statut pitivincial^ 18 Vict, ch; ' !
108rendftju^e.nep^po„, 6 jours do loyer, ,s.voir. pou. le loyer depnis le der
mof jour^de ju,l*|t>scru;au 6 aoftt; jour'de iWaiion du wif de sa^i
gagene, etlA saisie-gagerje f«t d^fc!*,§e bon'ne et valabl^ avcc ddpens • r'

^rc^amiau/^ <fe i)«AteTO4 pour M Demandeurs.' ^- . f i

i>« 5ieMry,:po^f le D6iendeurA

F«jr«ttc

•'fl:

: f I

4

■*

1-^

lil^'

.■w.I.;::-iii/-

\^'

^■

• ^ MONTR^L; i* DBCBMBRE 1868.

i^.

Corom Badolky, Ji.

No. 978. '
Ifeqly vs. Zabellt,

iJ

V

>'.

. *'«m<l-<lu'uh lomtairo ne peut pw 6tre„Mpids6 ea vertH de taw Tie oh in« «-.«„.. ^ . '

I« nHn^t!""^ VV/' la d^'nande^ expulsion dirigL centre lui en eette oauL sur-

In^rX.'*"'^. '^H^ laDemanderpsse lasomme de £15- Ss, 4d. couranl^

fitant la balance de sop Ioye^6chi^> depdis le ler Mai 1868 ap ler aoAt 1868 1

n«8on de £4 38. 4d. parjhois 6n Vgrtu ^'un. bail notari6; opposa une exception

dont^a ternres sont.(Jbiime 8tut: ^'And the said Defendanf^cep^S

«iJS"V'''?K"'^ ^ instituted cannot,be maintained I!^

is ^a^l * r h "'"^'"'^ *^ "-wer.becanse he, the 8«id Defendant

»8. that the action and demand of the said plaintiff is in fact i» demand or

•^on to^ recover the rent by her alleged to be due by the «dd:Sn2'

-d » nptas is requi,e4.by1aw,a demand^r action fcr Lre^Jon 51^

■ 'ci.-r

r'i-:f-:

«

J

i

rC

^provided lor by l«*,asb a demand fbr'r:^St<!eZof ^Ji^^
ren,ed,es; and thai the ,Baid 'd.mand and action iM.>ronght i, ;,r,Wy "f

--a-r-

■:*■

i.

46

H«t|y

CCUR DE CIRCUIT, 1888.

y^

>Va*/=^

■ .iuZa ""."J'* '"■*!»■'■« en droit do la DomanderoiBo sur lo prinoioo o^ U.

«n«?rl r^f '™^"* "J'"^* ^t6 fiiit le 15 NH,vembre 1858, le D6fendeur plaida

" Its fie a"nffl J?'""^ .^^f tho PlaintiflPa amended decfaration discloses on
Its face a sufficerf^ ground 7or proceeding in ejectment against the Defendant
doth d,s»,ss the Defendant's Exception fyM in this cauTwi^h gosts^*
/>ohertjf, pour la Demanderesse. > «* «•

/o f t^'*"'"^ *^ '^'^'■^«'«' PO" le DAfondeur.

/^"\ . ' , COUB SUPERIEURE.

' • MONTREAL 58 NOVEMBRE 1867. *

Coram8uirn,J. ^

No.482. ■:;."^ . : v4| ■■■ ■.• *-

' Beaudn, vs. Papin, and fapin, o^posmt I *. iw'

' ' PBOCfes PAR JCRiSg— FrAIB. ' '^'^ . -"

: . Le29 juiilet 1857 un brefdo saisie-execution fut 6n,and*do la Conr i„nA

ver'tul " '''"'''' '" ''^™'*"'^^"'- ^««'«'°*'«-* par distractipn'de frais In
vertudjin jugement rendu par JaCourdu Banc d^ laReinele 12 Marifi«"

rlf^T " ■"'^""''" P""^^ 'condamnant le D6fendeur aulS de

u„^;:t<^t^r'^"'''* ^"' <Ion,.ages personnel et le ju^ .„dit '

Le Demandeur ayant fait motion pour obtenir un nouveau4,roc4s. OT6tend»«^
que le verdict ^taitcontraire A (apreuve, la Cour Sup6rfe^f S'lt j^

Cette motion pour un nonveau proems ne reclame aucuh dfipetis. ^ ^^ Ih^
^La Pnncpale question 6tait une question ^'interpretation dulugement de la

Pi^»E>:

• Vide IL.O. Jurist p. 114.

■■ \':

- \-i

.\,

r

CIRCUIT COURT, \m.

Vj

7\.

\\*

Thw tender accompanies the opposition. '

hp f««L.^r , ? taaonginal motion did .not ask for costs at »1l

p^ j"g«°'ent est motiv6 comme suit ;

vs.
FMn.

j; »

J^

^•"

/

> ^no^nt kTi! • *''"'^ •'?"'** tTepiaintiffs, « par distractioH de frais" and the
aposant by the. counsel upon the merits of the contestation brthe'pUint^:

♦ *

48

pmcJUlT COUUT, 18fi7.

fi<«uUi7
, Pipln.

toBtao, y a, were incurred «ul<j5jq„vntly t<. tl.« „.o.4 for a new trhl whirL
^a.d m.,fun Imd^Uon rcfuicd hy tl.; Court b-low • '

n.ett7ll?"?/^:'''".r''^ ^'••''-' ^--«««' .1.0 M.MJu.1,.

id J r \; " "'' *'■"'""' ""y ™^'»"«" ^'-'t^-*"- «f cost, a, rcL..rd« tlfe

,, d motion and cou«derJng that U.o proceedings i„ the Co..rt below 1 /L

.0 Court b.Iow oii^the sa.d ,„.4io„ for a dew trial ; and furtbor eotsldoriuH

*loWanded by tlio mii

'i> f . ■ "»-- - —yv" ■■■ uiu wouri ociow; tlie Uoiirt doth rcinf t »1i«

rj, and 1 "T"^* '"''" ''" '""'■"« ''^ "'^ '-"■^^ writ of execution rf.
vahd ^nd doth ,na,„ H.n the said opposition an.i doth condemn the «i1d Plain-

• •■««.>«'-<l'«tract,on» to pay the costs of the K„id opposition." «

Oumet, Morin dh Marchand, for PlaintiflF.

Za/Venaj/e, for Defendant, and Oppt. ' ^ *

'.. MMtL.) /. < ■ ■.-. .1 . r ,

MONTREAL, 30 AVRIL 1858. '

Coram Smitd, J.

«...

J. • ' No. 1988._ , v -.■.

, ^ouraatay. Bidard. . * '' ,

. Testament— NoTAiRK—EcBiTUBB. ^

t„J.'.ur"'^'r.P"'"""''"'' '* I><''»'"'^1«'*««« en reddition de compte et par

19)«nv,cr 1856 par devant Mtro. Beauvais, notaire public, ct Zx Z'o^ 1
son cx6cutr.ce testamentaire. Elle all^guait q«e commo avan/ Ar

ij, '

-iiuu UB iBSiament 6tait puVv5qn¥

_fe-

>*v.~-

CmclJIT COURT, 18fl8.

^ ^ ., ■ 4f

O.U. .a du.t6„ .t ,,uV» lo. l'«U«„„o .!« cette d*daratio,. |o r«„.l«it nul.
l«r M rO,,„,.«o H,,*c.,«le lo Domandeur all6g»«it 3o i.L, que Qu»„d Lie..

La^<SfondoreB8ocitftjwautorit(<8 BuivftiiteB-— '

l!;oT,.,KK,-Cout: d'0rl6an«;T.t.<XVI, No. 14, m /fn«
HfhiiiERi!,— 4 (Irand Com. ,tit. 14 art ofift ri^.,;* - .> ,„- ,.
obso^ do M. Ic. Q«„u8 Hur Tart 280 nn", ',?/,' "^ ^•^^^^®^' '''•'^«""'

V I txigee , I art. 972 1 oxigc k peine do nullitd. .. . i /

2 Vol. Farg>,to. p. jj, „^ jj, j,,, ,„,t™„t,, ch. 7, mo. 1. ' Xi ^
. .. Cour,.p,„, »„dWo„ . dihoM I. lj;„„.„Oe„, j. .„„ ^^-^ ; '
l^cjiigementcatniolipficomme.fiuit: -» .

furthe, oonrfdonng ,b., ike ^id Defendant e^not tj ™.«,'^ „1 „«i"j

•ng the eoneln.,on, by be,'t*e„ i„ her ..id pW, Ibo Court^loS m.M„ tti
«..d pie, «,d doth diemli* the «,ia actio, *ith .-^rt.." "•

^A/ai^«*«i,«-rfy,|^rleDemandeuii, ^ Action d6boutie. „

7i

.BourMM
R<<l»rd.

>d'i

\

>N

iP.u, I.

^♦.

.<>

:}•' '

't . ■■ / ■,

■-.-.•. •

» • .

\ ■ ' '. ■

°

"• ■;; ■'—- — : —

■■ '

' ■ '

'^.-

f

r '

" ■ ■". "%/:

60

U'\

COUR 8UPKRIEURE, me.

MONTREAL, « MAI, wa*.
Coram C» %iroiLaT, J.,

,KaN

' BoulAiltkr, t*. Turcot.

. " P*«NAUTl^GtAUM OOMllIirATOIUl. ' ■■ / '

A .on is. '^ ^"" ^" ""'"""' '«*.«^rUforco lour procurour o« un .ut„

Pour inottr^ cotte clauw do la Sentence Arbitrale k eff.L l„. ^•
rcconnn par divoin protfite ot nntuu.^- , "^"""'^ * «"«*. '«■ parties avai«nt
"no prociration oft fav^ du SilTP v '""•*' '" "'«"" "lUtueUe^ent
. teur. de lour ol-^....Z.mT^^^^^^^^^^^ '» <i*bi-

tale. * "" ■'" W'"""!*"' de «> o^former i 1. „„ta„ „|,i.

con«„Ur c.topZ™.?„rTl''° """'•^ "''"""' '"' " "'-'»

.ii*gu*« rcpjift, ,.*::.; fuu.rrLrrHf,"i^,'''r' " '"•"™ "• "»'• •

pour plusieurs motifs oai «onf .«« • ^ ? * ^*""" ^^'"^oy* ''action '

, I-ejugement est inotiv6comine suit: A '*

Fa.5oisXavier Laforoe pri^ 6 a rfl d^'^" """"^ ^"' '« ^^Position de

laproc6durepourlesraisori„iU i »T."*''' "*'^ "*>'* '^^t^e de

^dat^moin^et^uialt Ts'vrr;^^^^^^^^^^ 'objection- faito lors de 1 Wen

\t le t^moigna^e et avoir sTrt^rdS'^ti^^^^^ f "^ P'^'"'**-
. . rant quo le Demandcur n'a pas fait DrZ« J' ' iT 1 ^'*" ««*'«" et.consid6.
ration et nom.^ment que r 'Sl^er 4^^^^^^^^ <^« » <^^«'-

trale. dont il est question en cette cL« !„ !. f "**" '" "^"'^''^^ "^i"
donner les pouvbii n,LZ:Tr:^Z^' '^^ *" '«'"«''°* <^«
^dite declaration ; Consid^rant'ou^lTw *"' '^^ '' *"* ""^K"^ «° '« ^-

fussentn^cessair^pour^lt^rer'e'dru^^^^^^ q^e tela pouvoi™ &

UP. du compro.. .i. .„.. ,. parU. e^ ^ ^^ f^^ll^- ^ ^T

[ t'JI''

JgQUR SCPBRlEtmB; 1608.

loi que coo,.;::: reTl e Ill„r "* '"^"^* "'""* ^

mage ,..«.Unt de Tine j; ,„'; p^^nt rrlt' '77 f .""" '^™-
•rbitnJe 4 Quelle i| . do„„6 lieu Y. .rUn J T^ "' ^^ '' ""''"'^

^/i^y« «* Pa/«n, avocato du Deniandour.
CA«TMr, i>or.o» rf i)ori(,«, .voMU du Ddfendeur.

(F. K. L.) ^

BoutUlllw
Turool

•f ■

^

MONTRBAL, 39 MAI 18S8.
^^ "Coram Dat,]^

^«nA««//, ... ^t Zo«»., ot Id, ./ fa Cbmpojmi, rf„j?i,A,/i^

A * '"OOR'ORATIOW— Rbprib,. *

'«««.-Qu*une auoolation qui, dunut !• imwa. .mam

l.BommeTi!48 ered. ^ '-" ■'"*"'°* '«• ^'«»<J«"~ Ponr

rJ^^^^T^^^Zr^^ ^*-"*^-- ^-'Por.e p.,
le Bom de son incoip^i^^""** "^"**' ^" '^P""'^" ''•-^<'« -ou-

u.e^rrr^dr^r-"'' ''*^^*™"*"- ^^^---^-^ -^-h,.

U iihoM en droit, a;ant «M Nmmie, Im cartiej nr„.A)Ai^ i .

The original Plaintiflii forming a Joint Stock Comn.nW i. -i
mencement of thia suit, been inipora^ b^Act oXh /"? ?' ""'"•
pray that the new Company should brXwedY^tv ^""T"' ""'^ ^'^ P**^

The DefendanU have obfej^ buT k i, !^ ^^l?*! ^^^^ **^'^* ^'""^J^--
Petitionem. "^ ^ **"* '* *' ' "«*»' ^^^'^ ^le^'j belong, to tb<,

Richelieu C0SA7 .nd th':;-^^!^*:^ Xl^L 1^'^ """^JT *^
(performed by the said corporation, o^igaUona should be.ac<,uitted and"

The Petition is therefore granted.

■W

Lafrmayt d Papin, for Plaintift.

CartieiL4t-Jltrththt, for Befendntr

A •

^

■m
ft.

A8

4

-^^ — ^} dL — ,

MONTRfAL. 30 M iflOfl

AL, 30
Tnid*au«tal.9t.'M4nard. .

*.. Qu'„„ «,„,„, d.„« „„„„ „,^ «^» J^ .^ "•«««.»r««„t d, iMr w^d*^ Q)

prmiT* {Mr toril. '^ J>in«pruUPn«i frsno^M wm un o..mm»n«,u„„,i il«

C«tt6 action 6tait inte„t6<, ,,«r .loux oomn.flr.;a„U noD-iMoolA. Doar IMn..*.

I -iroiMO St. aiwon (.«;tucUtm.«nt St. Liboiro ) »«»"«>«« rang dp I.

Ma. 8M, e D6r,«do«r roconnui aroir re,., en <liren,c foi. avant oc t«Zo«! "
d « .Iernan.l«un,. d,vor,e, .o,^,„e. de <l,„io™ «.. ^^ntant de tre toCpt K

J^Ie d.t Pierre Dugrpnier, onvor. !e« dit. Dcmandour^ at ^tt JluV e" 2
M6nard et Dugron.or n-Hvaient pa, rempli lour contra7n.aU qu'U devai ntl^

Le D^femour et lo dit Pierre »«gronior ayant n^giig* dWomplir iren^!!
gementaqu'd. avaient ainsi coptract6« avco ie» DcLnd^urT Z ^^2^
cour. da momde ddcombre 18ff« auralont con,enti par oon.entidrveTbala d J

tlZZllT T''f ';'"'' ""'•■"''«• ''^^-'"lu'il promit^^ni

r^dr^flr*^ "/' "" """'" •"'• '"^'«"* ^»'« ^« boi.\l'6pi„ette.
^ Ud.t DAfendeur ayant encore n^glig* do fournir et livrer aux demandeur.

q Wo.ent«o«vontre.pUB; Iaditequantit6dobola,etayant to^^^^^^

rtolamaieht ;e60 de dommagea en .as de« av^ncw par eax faitca. Le.
Demandeun. rAcIamaiont en tout la Boinme de £61 lOa aayoir • £ko 1 a
m.geaetoelledo£37 l«., par enx av«nc6e an olfenir * ' -'°'' ^

Le D6fende«r plaida par exception qu'il arait 6x48^^rtt^„;~tTotf^ i"
plasnne d6fi^n«e aufond.enf.it !.» Demandeoi. ayant pZ7 leu«tlll
gu6B et admW\p»r lours rfiponses avoir ro«u trente wuf o«rdesdont 1^^
et «n quart 4 2.. fld, 1. corie. 1. c.n«, fSt insoHt^gor^audi^o^^
Mai 1888. te 27 Mai 18fi8 .on honneor le ^^SZltT^ *"

.enea«dit^.^ur,a que.tlonde«.oi,: "re.mt^«^^^^^^^

M joindro pour porter ane seule action., . ^ ^ * 3' -

^La cause ^nt 6t6 inscrite de nouveau poor «&i^„ W m«rite en Jui^T
lejagementfut»>ndu en favenr de^Demandeu». que pour M.4r/.Zl^I

(I) Vld« alio L.0.1L nth »ni .. tin nt S.^ .. — in.

(1) Vld« .bo L.O.R, 8th TOL p.m gtCTOllto^«t A, y,. Blwt.

'XJ-

/■■.%'

A4^

sf .,w:

OOUB 80rERIBURB; 1801.

■ 'iMf-f

(Pi Si Ih)

w

*

f'

MONTRKAL, 17 MAI 18S«.
Coram Day, J|, ^

No. IMS. •

TViy/of, v». SitUeal, ot al,,
Wwr— D^or, A K ATio If ,

'H'

A'-k'

.»» ,-

*^-

^ V.

Jltflt.-Qll'tl Mt n^tUAlrn ou'iin ■»!> ,1'. . .. *

compoiiMtion. mET ^'^•"♦•'♦^"^ut pw |^« «Mepllon do

luidonnor jurisdiction. ^ '" ^"^•^* *n"«"6 do la Cour.jwur

, Dans 1 V'sptice, le Writ d'awiiruation ii*«tuit nM rt«„l..u i

A.&Q. Roheriton, pour le Demandeur. *

-4fcAa«6o«/< C0 i>«A«ime/, pour le. D6fendeuW' 4

f

MONTREAL, 30TII DECEMBER, IMt.
,A^ " f _ Coram Hadoliv^;. ^ „)

R - . T, . IFarfbrr. Bu^ougJuand-Surrdugh, Opposant, "^ ' ""•..'''

~r- OPPOSITION— AFPinAVIT— DATE. '^

On the 2flth Nov., 1868, Opposantfyled an opposition 4>» rf-ann^i/fo. *. " •/'
«/mw„tofexecution against his JandB. The affiLt follow^ theS v "" '/
•nd .as written upon the«,„e pag^^ He affidavit wa. LL^«" St TJ ^ ^

on the 24th November, while tl^l^^^ition bore dftti" Mo«tiaH. oIT!
>.d .e»th, .pp^^„t.y two days aflTnhe making .friffi^^^^^^^^ ^«,*^»^ ^^

^x "I'l"/ I" uie oppoeiuon. >^: ;■ ^ i J ^

At the »rtp,n,ftnt. the eonm.1 fbr ibu oppoa^ut nuuleaUed that the di.crepan^

.»*■

/

«3^y

:_^i:i^i

> V ";'

ii'

M

SUPERIOR COURT, 188ff.

Walker
Burrouglw,

■■(..

in the date of the opposition was not fatal thaf it «,„. -a .i
in fact tT.odateof the opposition waTw UI o„ :a^r'r"r\r^^^^
by the fyling of the opnos t on an.l .l.„f 7 ^ ^^""'^ """'^ authenticated
was i.Lfria1. In~;r h ie: V^^^^^^^^^

Co-nsolcitedthocasein 7.,oS..periorCo n No mT wt ''^p' "" ""'"^
mv& dit Pariseau opposanl, in which tZJ\ au ' ^ """ ''' ^'™'''"' «"^
seaside the opposition o^ t .ri«„d of T " ''™'''^' •"°"°" ""^^ »«

tbW caso^'the opposi^'rltttrr?^^^ ^"

the\>8th of same morith, while th!tr^?r September, 185?. the affidavit

made on the I^th of same month • T ''''""°" ""^ '"'"^^ ''"** ^''^ ««''™'«^ •

Smith. Mondelet^and Badgley, b/ „Ce„t imh S" TT^'' ''^ '^""'^^■
missed the motion. AnotLr moUrwrl r""^"' of sanje-ytar dis.

opposition fyled by Dame S rrrwr. V^"' ''"' ''^^ *** "^^ "^'^^^^^^^

was dated the day before the iffidavit was made! "" '^" "^'^'^''

Badoley, J. dismissed the opposition hoMin« ti.^ • i • . .,

-466o« <fe ^ait^, for Plaintiff. ". Opposition dismissed.

CroM (fe 5ancro/lf, for Opposant.

(H.B.) , *^'^ ^ ■ - /-

; MONTBBAL,80TH MAY, 1887.

, 0»-«mDAT,J.aHItH,J. 0. M0ND«.T,J. '

Wo. 726,
Gauthier v. Boudrtau et al.

. ■'"i .

TOIOB TO A SPBSTITUTION.

' ■™y*^'«e« forfeited, wd-ffoAea^cad-Wi^^tt.

I he declaration of the plaintiff set nn th^ «.5n * ♦ ."

mufrait, thB propertr -as to T^T" ?,^ **" "' Mptation of ft,
' oWtbT^^TeW ^t • ^"*'"***'''''"''^^^ saidprdperty

To of 1?,!;;;"!^^*"^^ ^^^ ^^--^^ «"» '» ««» of auch usufruct ■ ^

«at no 8«|stitution wa^ created by the will of Simard. and that th.

^.

1

■'r

'•m

SUPERIOR COURT, 1868.

. - 86

denied the allegations of plaintiff's declaration ^ '" ^'^''^ *''''^"'^*°'«

rendered by the Court. ' ^ ^'"^ ^" '''«" ™«"'«' «"<» judgment

he was committing waste and depredal io^^^^^ ^" ^''^-^^^^^^ *''«'

ing into the merits of this o^ 7^1 '• ''"* **" ''*^PP««1 fro*" enter-

4t in the qua irvlurdtt S'^'^'r ''^«'»'«-*« ^'-''tiff had any
hesitation inlylrrad^tZ?. 7'/" "t"' '''« ^«"' ^'"^ "^
look to the takfngof hefnv nLof r " '*"*"*''" ^''^ "^"'^ *^

• mentof themontes,brh hlSZnVh ^"^'*^ '"**'''"'' «"^ '^* '"^^t"
quently call upon the Cour. T'T ^*u * P^«P"«t<»-, and could not conso-

•has a 4ht Zc i f iSe ;^ir i^or^t '" .'' '^'^ ^^ -^ o- •

opinion as to wl(ether the aLTconlH . "'''^'' '^""""^^ *« ««"«' «"y

; stance. Actionfdismis^: S'Zl Trdf^^^ the present in-

■ fence on wrong Lunds. ^ **"^*'*''*^ *^« defendants having baaed their dc-

ThoJudgmentYrea^^^^^

liberated thereon, conaiLri^^^^^^^ «-«''• '"'" ^^^^^ <i«-

the Substitution in his Declafatl! in t^i I/^f '"^ ^"''"*y ^^ Tutor to

any right of action again^ trde e J^^^^^^^ *"*^^' ^^*^ -'^^ ^-

in the said Declarai set forih T^ JZ- \''"^' ""'"«"' «°** things
without Costs. fo'th,-doth distoisathe action of the PlaintS ,

ZeWanc«feCa*«Wy, for Plaintiffs. .' Action dismissed.

T. J. J. Loranger, for Boudreau ef uxor
^<»ninville, for DeBJ&Tdinset uxor. /

* \ CIRCUIT COURT.

.' MONTBBAL. Mth PBBEUAEY. 1869. "^

V Corawi Smith, J.

^ No.es.

^orrin vt. Legault dit Dealauriera
negoUab^eb.en'd^S'ialh^KlSfw^r"' "'^'^ '^'^ *» * P«t, or hi. onle,. „ .

valuereceiv^,lnonVye:^tmdrT^^^

^"'"" F'wwwu lOat an innf.rtiman«. »r ..t . . .

Ganthler
BoudTMuetll.

uu.a,l«j^ ,bac an instrument of such a kind waB^^^^

♦;™r4

»•

«?

C[RCUrr COURT, 1858.

Hdnin

liCgault dlt DCS
laurfairA

Sm.,,. J-Tho paper in question l.a8 all the W,q«»itC5 of a negotiate pro-
n.8,ory note. It promise., to pay, for value received, a certain Burn of money
to a party named or hm order, at a certain time. The assignment i, complot;
bemg cquivalcnno an endorsation. i " , - ^ -

„ Sflorodon <fc G^r^/ner foe Plaintiff. '^'. . f^'^^^t f«r Maintlff.

i'eblanc d- CasaidytQT Defondant.
(w.r.o,) ^ . ^-^

"*i

, COUB DU BAXC DE LA REINE.

. K EN APPEIi.

■ V J>U WSTRICT DE MONTREAL. - '

MONTREAL, 6 OCTOB^K 1857, •
Coram Sir I. H. Lakoktaink, Bart., J. en Chef, AvtwiN, J, D«vai, J.', Caros, J,
, Jean sPhuneau, ,- ' '

■ , \ (Demandetir m Cour In/irieure,) .

" p^ • ... . "' '/

• - Appelaist.

V

V

<^1

BT

Joseph NAPotEbN Cuaiilebois,'

{"^i^i^f-saiat (HC'our'in/iriettre,)

^^^flis'mj^i' """" f"P'^'^" *^^ MontrenU .„d„„„j„g..mentq„i
iSVLrif ^^ ""'."'''"T"'' '^'^''''' f""- ''Appelant & la D6claration do

Cba lcbo.s, fit sa Declaration' affirmant no rlcn devoir. Plus de huit jonrs 8^-<

1 Appelant, Dmandeurf en produisit une;.sur .notion de ITntime Gharl^i,
ceUe CO,. testation fta rejetoe co.nme ayant ^te i^roduite tr^p tard. • ^^ ■

n'a^i'STs '" ^'"i^""' ''*'''^ '^ ' "^' ^^^«^ P- '«^"*>"«. " <^^<^'-o
Zlli^JI"^"""'"^ appart^rant 1 la J)efc„deresse et nelui devoir

La contestation fut'poduite le 17 juin 1860.--*- -' *• ' ,- '
Par une regie dc pratique promulgue^e par la Cour Superieure, if est decter6 :

7ZofT T ^f'' '"'^'*"'"' ''*^» ^"'''"■" '^'>'*' ^«F ><"» the render,

tuff q/- the judgment ^ /Ae orJ^/Zna/ faasc. , * v

Voir P. 20, regle^de pratique, No. 9^. '- • '' -I ;^

ter^f^tr"f f '* ■"^^"'''"■^"^^ "P'-^^ jugement, consequemment auf
n« till. f°.?''*T*^ "'-'•«»*' la contestation produUe aprc.s 1, d6Iai
deMut jours, ^laitirregulierementproduite.

rcj«. de la contestation en s'appuyant sur cettc regie do pratique. ^

*.v;i$

M

lit

COUR DU HANO DE LA REINE; 1857..

67

Qm |«s faits c>ae88ii8 nb sont narvom.. i i • ^

: gnant „„ delai fatal ho« duquel il pouS 1"\a*T
. ^--P-vent jamais avoirlef^araJsTet^^^^ - '

, au pouvoir logislatif et si la Ip»fr« 1 S' ^ *"' umquement rfisery*

. ' 'Hmiter et .n^me I'effal ' ""P"'** *'' ^"^^ I'interpr^tation doit L

Oe declarer s'i, c:::Se l^^ "tl'^ Vt" T- '*" ™« e. Leure
contestation. * P'^'""* *'''"™^ °ly««*'<>n ^ l** productiota de telle : ,

\^ # Llntimfe dans son factonienonsait ainsi ses prt^^^^^^ '

Une r^gle de pratidue faite par la GoJir q„«L T ' -aL'"' * , . , . .

.A huie jours le d.lai d'ans ^-eUetl't^^t^ «&^ ^W. fi^e ' .

^jogement rendu en conformity de la regie, TT^J V'^^.T "" ^

coranll, qui laisse fibre pendant trcnte an« }. jf^ depositions du droit
^ ;d'unSs.s„.i. <i^^hnS,r2lJ::TZ;rnZ^^^^^^^ ,

/ «a.8, est expos6 pend&nt trente ans H vftir ^tel s!^??'"^^"''''"'^^ '
saisfe-arrStifet une instance dont lJcffeL1T.''^^'^^''''''^'l''^^''-^
H-scripti,^ trentenaire. D'aut JnJl:?l!! "..P'"™«'^ ^- P%* ^

r

^

»r 0. ,«•,! d„i,, ,.„i,^„. 2, action SZTrir °, "'*"° P»"-d«»-

^ ' 1 .-

. . • ' » V .

'. - » ■

\

J

MfH".

r^

»9

BruDMU
ChvlolMia.

COUR DU BANC DE LA REINE, 1,857. ' '1$ \ ^ *

• .•

en ce senj que hnaction dek partie pendant un ddUfquelcoMue, fewlt «yer
sa den,«flde de8 r6gfttreB de la cour et eft donnerait 000^6 & 1* p»rtio«dren6,
saufAlaronouveler _IJ^^ ^i^t^ ,„ vortu de " fi^udle one

cause qui ava.t 6t6 laiss^o 8«o8 proc6d68 pendant troiA termei, fitJTiiBo hor.
de cour. 0 est aux Coufb a r6gler leur propre discipline, quand une loi partiou-
hdre ne paralyse po,nt IjWrjurisdiotion^ et on raati^re de Bai.re-arrAt. il n'existe
aucune lo. semblaWo. Le Demandeur avait hoit jours pour contester la d6cl»-
ration 4u t,ers-8a.«u C'eet .,n prJvi!6ge dont il n'a poini profltfi, et 11 doit
s .mpHter k lu. seal Ie« con86<iuence8 de son iriajUon. Urn il objecte k cette
obserratiop qufl^sa cdntestatk.,. contenait utf reproche .de frkude et collusion
entre 1 Intirap Charlebois ot l>»:ne cr6oph6e Ranger. La distinction entre cos
cas et los ca8 ordina.res est sans .lifference. Le 0emandeur devait pratiquer tine
8ai8.e-arrfet«ouvcllo, 8,'il avait depuis I'expiratiotr des d6lair appris L faits qu'il
ignoraitjusque^A. QuSn? an tiers-saisi la r^gle lui donne le privilege d'ltrp
Iib6r6 dans Ics^huit jours, si Ton no conteste sa declaration, et il eir, profit6
Sir Lovia tt^ Laitontainb, Bart.r Juge en Chef; dissmtiens :
Sur jugeinelrt obtenu contrq la Defenderesse, raarcliande publique; le n
t6vriei^l856, dans la Cour Sup6rieure, & Montr6al,4'Appela«t a fail; omibet un
bref de 8a,8.e-anut cntre les mains de pliisieurs personnes du nombre desquels
est 1 Intinie, fils do la D6fenderessc. Celui-ei a fait sa diclardtion' le'5 Mai 185»
qui *tait le jqur fix6 par I'assignntion. Jl a affirnie. no ric-n devoir 4 la t)6fen-
. deresse et n'avoir aucun effet 8,clle appartonant; •: . v

• Le 17 juin suivant, I'Appelant, contestant [a d6eiavaUon du tiers-saisi, pro-

gn6s
suit:

" Au dit Louis Napoleon Charlebois; le tier..s;isf : Prenez avis' de' la lontes-
^ tation ci-dessus et que vous *tes tenu et requi. d'y fournir plaidoyers -ou
r^ponse dans les huit jours 4^ompter do la signification des prLenttfs." Le
tout a 6t6 signifi6 au tiers-saisi persohnellement le 12 Juin 1836 * -

Le 19 du.,m6me mois. le tiers-siiisi a comparu par ses procurours iui, !e 2g,
ont fait en son nom une motion k I'effet de fa^e rejeter les moyens de contestai
tion, comme ayant 6t6 irr6gulierement produit8 et longtems apr^s le dela
^eshuit jours, et attendu qu'aucune regie n'a 6t6 ^6man6e en •cette;,^ause
ordonnantau tiers^isi de ropOndre aux dits>oyen8 de contestation,'* et ii
effet de faire en mSme temps declarer I'ApHant " d6chu.du droit de con-
tester la declaration du tiers-sai^i, ne I'ayant pas fait dans les ddlais vouius.'.'
I^ 28 Juin (1), est «tervenu lejugemeht dotft est appel,>r loquel U motion
du^^^-saisi est accor^^ et les moyens de contestkon .en Vons^uence ^ejetes
ayecd6pens. Si, de fait,ce.jugement n'a eu pour motff que I'u^ des moyeria
art.cul6s dans la motion, il nous le laisse ignorer, car il n'est ^poin* motivi. A
en juger par les J^^/««, des deux parties, le jugemenC n'auVait eui en effet. i

tion de la d6clarat.pn du tie^^isi. D'un autre c6t^, en accordant parement *t
^plement to moho„ du tie»^8«jj^gejugerfen^ pas ^jensfi declarer: Jo ^

^ 17jum suivant, I'Appelant, contestant [a d6e1ava«on du tiers-saisi, pro-
tdes moyens de contestation, lesquels moyens, dates du 6,'6taient aLomV
8 d un avis de m6me date, sigu6 des prooureurs de I'Appelant, k I'eEi qui

'^n,

rcii]
''In
lant
A
^on

TOUl

dait

!*.
aiei

p088<

"eh*

J" CO

"d6

>? ■ *

■?*#•

;•.■**

(1) ry^^»''to^"itM.4«g^gerthyrtimitrertfriiondeiet. ■ •;

i.--:"'-

.-■y^l-

/■:v

N,:_ -■■■■-.-

ooncc

' x>

.<^

•w

111* '" I'i^' IMI' '\ \

II 1 1 • \\ ' it '^''

BnUHM

■m. .0. droit do coa,irir^:^^^\fl?"« 't '^*'^"'«»' -» ^*<*«

\ >AnJ^ party intenlg to ^T^edJ^ ?' ^P*"'*"" ««* «» ««» termea / ^^ Jfe/ ^ '
. ••'^.oate.tation mikin^ktZ^)^^ t^ZT 1 1 ?"-^^ "hall ' flie hi. Mv ^^;
. - -Saw. if the attacLnit ^i^ a^^^tZ t ^«^'««'*'^-<^^h^^y«^. 'Il ^ ^
'"«e«t be ai, attachment. *I1 :!^"?:"'"* «fter judgment ; andlftiTiuaotr^: -^

from t&«

Salsi), a 6t6 invoqud do la oart d« I^A „n„i ; ' ' ** '^<»*fd<mnah Tiers-

K; -»<prati<,ue.taUla;t!: ?^^^^
\ fatal. Dans cette caase, ^n/a«I-/avatLt . .f !"" * ^'''" ^''^ "» <^^'«i
A jour tJu rapport- M hSZTlZ t \^^^^^^ 8 Mar» 1856

; permi8aionde contestor, mais c'^tarnln ^« .I>«™ande«r avait obtenu la

. ."D6fej.deurotle tier^sHi«iJoLorar„c ^^^ '*"'*"'" >"«' »* '«
i '> contestation de la declaration dudTrs'f,^^^^^^^ """^ « J«»". ^ '«

;;-'-^./.JlfutpermisIuDemand„X^^^^

" «^t la i?<ri,fe «,«; avec rapport de le«r^! •« * * J"*"'"'^' ^* «<>nte8tati4ii.

^ait de la Part4e JourdoSune ^Z f S^^^^^^^ ^"'"''^^ ' «^ '« ^^' -
contestation, « attendu qu'ils ont htbZLf^ "- """J'*''' '*" "'^y*'"* ^e

• " qu'ils n'ont '6t6 p^oduil q«e lonltnni ^ *"?' P'oduits, .et notamment

:-d.oi«^tipnc^^eSrJ:t^z^:^^

pour pouvoir produire stemblable conLatb?'' plf ' ^''"'^ '^^^

rcmarquer, ava/t e(6 faite par lea m/m«»Tv . ^ * '°*'''*'° ^''•' " «»» ^

''Intim6.etq«i6tait-comba^paHeT:w K 'T'^-'^-' -Jo«rd'hui

-lant, fut rejejfie par le kAmZ ^L^f T a'^?*" ^"' 'epr^sentent I'Appe- ^

Ai^i,s„le^m/Ml^lf^^^ • ^y^

^»3oppos.e.rune4?S^ It^^i'r^^
roulait artftter eutre l^^ains d^tiTS ' *°^«° .d^^t, le cr^ancUir q^i 5

fentpourainsEnrdl?!" J^^^^^^^ tout wmblables. Elle. „e ^

«!

%m:

. ■ ■■ ■ 1' .■

„-.-^-__^__

,■■-■.-' '■ y

... * ._ ■ ■ ■ '■ . ■■'-.'■ 'wBb'.'.

■'. -^ti^-

/■/

60

COUR W BANC DE L\ MINE J 857.

/■

BruoMu
,ClMH«bii|«.

"'*»«*«»?'"•?'*'("«• " mi«"« <l6finic. qno ccllc

qui itHieiit autrefois
Voppoaiiion ; c^pi
quo In iii6iiie chot
fJe CO co(ie :''"'de«

disfinctipn ontro la laitie-arrit et
i«A qui Bont recdnnus ne signiflor
k la rubrique mdmo diV litre 7o

"sie-4fr6t se fnisait de deux

M.^m^T, £^ '»^^^^^« r-""" ''^

\

-

if.

■#■■

\-^

" article poiie qU Ll^^c^^^^tlw " " ! ""^ ''^""^ "^''^« ' ^ '''^
•'fairevuWfeur^diS 1^0^/1^^^^^^^ "« sfiquestre. seront oWig^a d« ^

I^p saisissant avait dojm

il pouvait contester.'

,- V ; * T- — -r ■""'«" .*»wM^- pius court
,la p6^pt,on, ait jamais dt^^p^ftrit ot, appliq„6
core de •ra6m« An F*on«« „^... ^H _ ■ *! ^

\ - \ :^^ue c^ui ^"ui ,devait
• * Y *" parey cas. II ei
. ; . -noBobstant tou ' '
4 •• « . . aucun dfelai po
.' " ' Roger, no. 596,
l^priftcipe, n'esi

L-

!„-. J 4 ' """^pii^ru ou appiiqii6

cor^ de.m6me en France sous ll nouveau code,
fons qu ,1. ^nferme sur la saisie-arrfit. 11 n'fitablit

iLm I?r "!" ''''5-»"- " H suit de IV'^it
L^t Ia46pJara>.a.nV|^,6t6 contest^e, dans le
■irttflndro, dans lo vm uA il Kerali fAche^chg pi,,.

^\

qu

\ act

s .■ ■ ■

^*1«<

l^bon

V •

une

de,

■tfS'''-"

dei

^^

/i84

■"■/ -.\

■'^^-

> *♦

^ K

(

\

COUR DU l^NC D9 LA BEINE, 18«7.

~- — r „ » — I — -

14

" t»pd, que tout Mt termin* k aon iettd " ^BIaIi,. tIs.* j

iin^L'* N» oni . <i I ji I . ^ w! » ««ftcnef Diet de pro«., Vo. •• Miai«-

«. i« ^ ^ J .. V'. "°"*^"*"' " ne Hera fait aucnne autre nrocAdurA ^{ a^

Ce arfcle 8,gn,fie qu'on ne peut faire centre le tien.-.ami d'autre procLre T«
cjlle q«. serait „6.e.«if«e par les ridamations i Clever centre ..7'ct«tr

' ^!^r^* '*''^'' '* •"''^'^•'■'^' "P'^" jngcment, doit toi.jonni'«e faire avec ««,i
g^^" -! -»; --">« «" tie.-.«ais|. II n'en pe„t J, a«tre«,ent depuula

taire ^n Fran..e, ati moyen de |>lu«leiir8 actea. de procedure w Mt im ««

««1 et m6.^ acte. qui contient .'exploit de «aisie, L.nolci'atron': ZZ2

au d6bne«r du sa,8,«sant, accorapagn6 d'nne demande en vnlidit^V U^^

ToTJTT ^I.;^''-'"- «ffi-"tive. 4 donn^r a« tier j!? ^^"'

d^^r^ !^ ?"'P*"''"''*"''"^'^«'^''''«"^""««.«"tlieuicr^^
dire simultanfiment ; tiers-saisi et d6bite.fr sont awiirnAB par le mAm« T^ 1

compa.aUrea«™6™ejourJepre»ier^o„rfaireaad^^^^^^^^^^

TOir d6claper la saisie-arrdt botnw^Ct valabk. II v ^\u '""**n<'PO"

, ««on ... Mhie^rt^ «lm.oi p.„t do.. «i™ „5„' » e,,™, ^ j"^ ™" * •"■

, »»»■*«■««! mfmi^HtiM ,„, par „„ d«,«t d. I«,ri,l.,.„, „ T- vj
I i, ... dmW '«gl« d. pmi,... f.ii. p., .« j.g™ d.h,Co„ C L:« I^IK

:?:

■ *■•--.

,4. » .

V

«->'

«a

CbtrteboU.

couB m BAm m la reinb; 1857.

clo la tndine toptuftu
appuyor pi^ito ^jo',,;

i • . <**

c«.up pluH lon^Je. LaTd",! ,,7,/:^^ """^ P"'"" <1"'^ »"«» P'^orfption do U.ui

•-ogarder ecu.. ,^„e ^^::::::::;x^^^^''''^

roaidait dan. „„ autre di.tnctiro!h.f '. T • "'"'-^ ''"■»'1»*»» '^"^ai-i-

.on district pour yfairesad^darS','^^^^^^^^^^ |r«fe de l»Co«r dc

J«goa de la Cour d'ou I'exploit <it.it ImanTr."*^""' ^**'* ''"""'*^»« «H»
>u« avant que c«tte t^anmi^ion eut Zf ,"/**"''«" ;^'=o"I«r phi.de huiV
parla r^le de pratique, courrdHo:" 6.^^^^^^^ t^'^l"^'*'' P'-"^
Miamant aurait done 6t6 expos* A voir iL ^ " d^cliiration est faite, l«

-nsq«'i,e.t6t6e„Bo„;rlri3r''^^^^^ -quii^^^on pr,j„dU
connait,., quelle d6clarat^„ .itmTtll^T''- *"*" ' *^'"'* ^'*^o«' P«
riglo de pratique qui a 6i6 prLlut TS' \ '"""" ' ^" ^^^^^ « '«
vg«eur,Iforcode loi/,a U^^^t'^^^' '^^'>-<>oro en j^^,,
.^tantaUolue, celui-ci d<,it en avoir touriW. t "? P^**** ^"" ^>«"-«i«

que le saisissant p^iwe c, ipeouver L l;,?!?^^*' ''*'*'*'"^ *"'* '« pr^iudico

appcle 4 co,„paraft^4,au lieu d'oii ^16 bref aV^iffT '''''"* ^'™ ^^'«'^«nii-
W encore la «e, de co^paraC^^^tr^Irr:!! f fc^-^' -'» .^^ui

IlejugeAj

aire sa d^cla

a'un tier^saii/ilUvau ^k :b^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "'* P<^t,r c,„U,, ,^ ,

que cette formalite ,8t exiLrS'„t '" P'™"'^'^" ^» tribunal.- . Je crois

etait d'usagoje presenter 4 la Cour utUn ' declaration ^^„ ti^ri-^iai,- il ,
' 1« declaration que fe^ftit le saisi^I ^m^^^ '''^"'^ tmanWZte^dc *'
qu'il n^t ordonn^ au tiers-saisi Hl^i^^'^t ""*" ' T --'«^»Vvi
aJff contestation dont lea m^yeng mZT, • L^ ■"'' *'«'•?« PO" r6p^dre
law Cette niaui^redepG^^^^ ''-<^ 4p«e d. I'o^^ ^e

»«3*.^ci.4.bienqu4nadi£Sra uXi^?-^^^^^^ ^^^

:»n,er abord n'avoir en vue.jue\je .^aaparSilr d T •""•■% -"^^'^ «" P^"
ration d'«n tigrs-aaiai d«n.id«^. d^ ^'S!Z til f^^^^ !?_

Bie

wHrdwclaraiion ; et Ift

■:\

- I •

Wn

■ JPQURDU BANC DE LA HEINE, mi

^ ■ - — - ( ■ ., M

" dito Cour arort. tl»n.inettr» tell« oontetUtion ..' " '■

. " l'.ut« p«rtl« pourr. dW«„der; 4 l«To"r Z U ir.'^""' "" ''"^ ''""« »»

" meU^evant la dite Cour." To.tt/«i P«"r*uita eftt 6t6 origM.aire-

. .Icp^« le atatu^ do 18M, chap. 104? J tatuTJ^'T^^ ^'"' P'"" "* '•'^*"'^'
. tatl6„ de h didaratloti du tier Jw t^^^Y^^^ ''> '"«"^^^' <!»« '« oontei.

mm/on do la Cour, dans le ohh nJ: i- "'^ "*'.*'■"* n^cewaire la wr-

.a /«?«/& dos deux Conw. da^l o " ? 1 ''.""' *"*'" b'«" ^e declarer
devait 6tre de.„and6e. ctZ ZZuL T' " P^'"'"'^" *« -"^-^''r
dana la procedure 4 .uivre dau. Iri P't""'*«"*'« ^^^ ««^t« formaliW

n>^me terns la conflrmer. Oreo tefor^^r^^ "*"'' '"'^"'«' «* «'^t«Jt «»
la 98e r^glo de pratlq.ro de la Cour Z'^e' 'e ^''^^^f -^' -H m^connuo par
pnucipe qu'il ri> a pas.do permfssion T k,^- :. ^^'^^ ""^^'^ V«*^« »»' •«
-fairoquelaiaLiouInlr^t^^^^^^ E^effet ilpout

de l« Cour, o.^,m6me d««s 1a SZ JllT '" ' ^"»'«'- J«" d'"" term,
que, dans ce is. le d6lai I h ^ »^ "*"* ""^ ^^^^' "''"P- 1»4. ««ct. 19.) et

^iWall^ndoZs;lt'::t™:P 'esa-Lanlpuisseal:;

un d6rii do justJio, sLla formality donJHPT** de pradque pourrait done devenir

. Dans le s,st.J ^Ta;:™:;^ "vSltrlTr T 1^

n^cessairement reconnaitre' oue oar ««T a i ^ ^ *** Pr«t'que,>]T. faudtait
. est de fait, quoiquWron W oC/. ^ '' ^' '""'"^^ q«V^e«t conte,
demandour qui a 4 rlrZ^TA u^n ? ""' P^'^'"" «"«'«^« ^ ««"« J

. <»^.rendre. DAs co ^^it ^urat ^li Lt" P^'^'T

sai«s8ant de son droit de^Ontester ^ ""^ pour feire dichoir le

^afi^qi!iD:::tPC!:ut^^^

bledo la per^issionSa a>?rSl^v'f -Jet«e.f«uted;obtenfion.pr*.la-

contestation, apr^ avoir obtenriBHfc •""• ' "* '^ '"' ^ renoureler cette

de son droit. Cependant si 1^ hST'TT*'" ' ""' " "'^* ?*« «"^«':« <!*«»'«

; esN aans modification U me seSr 1°"* ""' "^^^ ^^"». ^^"fi'-"^ '«! q«'n

,entreautreschoses,4'i:dn :^7:^tt " f^^'^"^-- ^"^ --^^

*t* accor^^e purement et simpl ^^tl d J^^^^^^^^^

jugement de la Cour dtf DremiAr/?„ ♦ <^6ch6apce est prononc6e piH«,

IW^tdeootribunal Juor' . "''• '* so trouverait mainfenue par

• concourir dans Ztl Z,';"^'^""''"'' »'"« ^ W'Pent. Jo be peux^n, p^

thfi late Cntir> »f Tf r...... W , ^'.""'•'cg. as irelt tfewe

Olwrlgiiote.

udeait
teq||k

Jh« late CamUiLmugfi Bgnbr

£g>>l|«^ylitL4^ffl<Vb^

, wu lae sweeping condemDation, of tMKJidea by any

,*'«"1

■.s ,/■

i,;|.
\

^, ■ s - /J

#..•">.

COUR DU BAl!rc D8 LA ttBmB,.|M

^" # -fc -^

oiaJSUii,

^o HnJi^/ •"*"' "^ """^^ ^•^"'••''" '•"'••«''h "ndor.rulo of practlc*

11.1 fi S„«r«IIpr«.M,„^,ag«i,„t ,1.0 p.rty omitting to .nsw.r intimo and

S: ptiio^^^^ '•^'' ^* '/• •'*»«r^^/«-«ouM. .nd ho i. .tii. I., tl.,.. .> got

' «.tdSi'in'"T"y '" ^'••^"•'8^"«»» ^^th" "^ty of* tho Court, bm
ftod iL.tJ,e ,||.J not o/,.roM «n^ o,,lnio« o,. the legali^, of tho rnio of priiitico.

tnotr. Pniu!mt,CllM J. T ... ' '

\

.•COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

MONTBBAU fSlTM JANVABY. 1841.

Coram Roll^nd, C. J^ D^r, J., V„, J.

Vo. ISOS.

'o^er#.

MARRIAO^M KtrOLANO — NO «bM{IUNITr

r, "fl

iiuitom of PwJt, between pwtiM
-intnwt, who iMve aftonrutU

iyk'

he 4|ih fl
)y then <I(

***,

■«$•••'

"J.

ohHwed their domfadle Md teUled »ml died iiH«w«r CMudi.%

1804, Richard Roger, and Thomasine Poarco wore J|L i„ tho p.n"h of
.StokoDamorol. 06«„ty of Devon, both parties l^i„^CdoXe7rE„^
Jand.tha| about twonty,oight yoiHi, before the i„,tifution of ^1
|^^g«t«d^ Lower -Canada, and •ottfod in the City of Mont^^ he'
:%d.Bo^er,,^ho 7th Juno, 1843, and Pearco tho .3rd Julv.- 1846; tLTw

and puatoma of England at the time when the marriagb existed, nLo^lnhv
?2S' ";S't^^^" »-^«d and .wi^, the-5^„o.a^ of tie TS-
X^f <#<»^er, jana.!a. whore tho communauU eii.ts could not ha^
_ t^cct |f ^^t^^^^^^^^ O^nm^ty; ti«t on the 28th November 18^8

^SMf.^'iT ^*|7-^. « c-'- immovoabie&o. of wl li ,„:
mjli^o^porty he r*n amerablo proprietor till his death, and which he leflin
«Mj,^,s.on.ogethfer with movables and effects to the vah'.e of ^^ a„Vl WO
»i|Sav,«gsBa„k;thatoB.the 1st October, 1 83 h, Rogers made hifitt wilTand
teAent before a-Jie. N. p„ by which he Hueathed tp Thom^eP ..^
#.h,8 property bobngrng. to him, enpropre, by reasoo of the commud rTf

shLi S- I "f. "^ '""''^'*"' ^'"''^ «'>«»'*' «"'y '"'ve the nsafruct but

^'-
^:.

ndi-

bat

V . •'

tion

■ *»'.'

r

(1

■^
**

V

COURT OP QUKRN'8 DENUH, 184«.

■ ^^^56"^

naming J„h..„d RoL. .. ..IZ • 1 J H 7''. J'^"""'-)' ««P••.«^

IbM .11 tl.« ftub,,'. off«,ta r»™i3 1. I,/ ^l 'I "" '*""'""°' '■' '"« "if.

The Defendant fylod an ^«c*p</on p4rmpl^ nAmhk^i, - ,
ivhicl. the action waa ba.d. .^.e HuCingfhTbvl^Sn of r" '"^ "P^"
exited between the partie. immediately «p6nlhL It I » T'"""'*^

Hada, and that this community existed tTZr 7"*"''";'«» '" ^ower C..
their decease, alleging the /,« «t W ! i \ d"«olm,oB of the marriage by
thai in cons^uenrL Jl^^^^^^^^^ ""' ^ ri'T ' " *"'' ^•^^-^•»? -"d
an. conejud^or thML^lrS^re Srtl^^vir' ''' " '^«'^'«^-^.

transf^f domicile to LoZcTThJ^ *'""'*'°" "" *''*''«^«'. ^^^'^^^
>;^U.e.eeea.d.^^^^^

respectively and deK L 1 1 'h "-'""T"' f '*'" by the partie.
'could boa communlMpertvC^r^K^^^^ *''*' '^''' "«'«' *« or '
in thi. cause, they llftS h Zl / f *^ ""' ™^"'^' °' ''•« ^^^
«o contract of mLage LrnTll!"*^.'*"^^ '^' P'*'« «^ •»•«'' <«<>""■«"«. and
ferrin, of their domile ^^^p. aTa^?!^^^^^ -"I ^ ^ *"*-^

effect of establishing such a communi!v!^f „, ^^^^^'^^ ««"'<> »«* '••H.tl't.
their presumed intentions at ro7m%r»^^^^^^ ^

Defendant in bar of the Plaintiff's action ill T "^^ """ "'*?'«'» *»f »»»•'
i» therefore considered, aldT^^^/J^t ^^i^^^ ""'^""'^'''^ '" '«'^' «"«»'*»
cities of Univenml wlnf . i ^'^fV^'^r'* P'"»tiff». «» their said capa-
the.olMnririe^*^p^;I^ T'' 'r'*^''''"' ^««"' ^''^'^ f-^^er .^^ • ^

in th6 declaration in this

^

\

%

^

. ?

> ,*f -

K

J"

^

-

•_ ►

«

-V-

, . .

Vi

aijianij ulhurs of the 8«ri?5nioveaHr
cause mentioned, and described as follows to wit:.,.

M

(JUEEN'8 BBNOU, |«4i.

Irolol^nl • 7". "^ '"?''•"' ""'• ^'^> pounds current money of thi!
prorlrtco, .nd .l«> |„ th« m,™ of on. hnn.lrci pounds rtfl««„ .hil|i„«, L ei^ht

pane, .«,do„rr.„«y.dopo.U«dby tl.e «id |.te Hiohard Hogcr. in .tnk in tW.

c.ty of Mo..tr««l. known m »!,« « Montreal I'roridonf and ivinK. lUnk •' „ «|.o

in the inu,re,t «ocrue.l upon th« Mid «um of «n«.I.uHdr«J pound., flfl.H,n .hlllin«

•nd eight pertee from the twenty third day of J,Uy, one »hou«nd, eight hundrS

- J^te RPf !' .f " "^ ''' •'''*"' -^ '"" '"*« '^''"•"-'"^ »•«*"'•. ^hi widow of tS

Co«rt^oth condemn the .*ld defendant to r^tore to the «id plaintiff; without-

UoZ lh!lT"*l"i '"^i ""'^f^""""' ^ *''' '"'^ i.nmove.ble hereinbefore ra,„.

Jul/^l . 1^ ." T""'"' *""'•-'*• "^ *"' ""«° the twenty-third day of

llln ' «'ff''t hundred and forty-«ix, the .aidionta and profit, to be

valued by .w,, named by .he partie. In thi. cau.e, before a j«dge of U.), Court

irr* .,''"' '^J' '""'" ^'<J«>-<^."-tH.e .aid defendant do. within one
month from the ..gn.floatlon of the present judgmont, make and render to the
•aid. pluihtifl., a true and jutt account under oath, according to law, of the move-
able.proporty and .uccewion of the .aid lat« Kichard,Rogehi, and al«, of the wid
«m of ««« l-u-'Ured pound., fifteen .hilling and eigh't pence, .o dopo.itcd fn the

theilf tr''"^ t**' ""'* ^^''-^'^ '*""''•" ^«8^'»'«' ^^''^ '^' '"'»l«»t accrued
thereon .ince the ««d twenty-third day of July, one thouwnd, eij^ht hundred.

and forty-Bix. date of the death of the .aid Tbomasino Pearce. The Court re-
serving to make and rcn.lor hereafter .uch further order and judgmc;.t in the
prem>«,. a^to law and justice may appertain, after thi. naid defendaht .hall
have made ind rendered the .aid account or .hall bo 1n default .o to do. Do-
fendaqt condiamned b cost..

r r Ai * 'n . . I Judgnuout for plaintiff..

•/bA»#««» rf 4fiim)ii^A#, fpr defendwuii , '

(P.W.T.)

VOL 3 p, m, without mention of the Judge. compo.i*g the Oewt who rendered Judgl

. y-

--■'■-v' ^%-'''-'' i: ' -/-^y

■■■■n

/

> ' -■ / -■'''■' ■' ■-. '

■■ . yy:- .V. M>" .; > ■-<,/■■';:-■■■ ■

1
/

■ '■■■' :-;'."■ ■ '

.. .y..)',^ j,'y ' 1 .M . . , .. ',) ' ;: jj\':j==

« .'

If 4'

'M

•■*',-■

•7

C»am Hmith, J.
8om0t$ Pi. Alh$nmum Inntranet Sotitty.

• ■■■'■

V

n«M. I. Th.1 tn artlon on • polloy of lii.unin<^« anklii*! itra. Ibr th* valwi of • hmu» MlMilMdim

W(pM„„ of ih. Umm, WM n»a« I,, ih« . ,.nt «< |h. l«un«, .»4 IhM th. Inen^NNt namC
»ft«„nu w.r,. .„»,„. h«hou«o.th.,.t U»»lm« Of H.««ftcth„ of ,h, poUc,. «,^^ Jl^i'

• * '"tj!*"*' '^"'•"'^ "^ "" «"•"•'•" «?f '««tb« •ll.WHJ In llw. d«cl.mion. nor lh*«m>r .»u^

* ^i^rr'^.',"'**.'^ d«hnJ«.» alkwlriit th. m(.<l«*n.|ptlon nuy b. m.d.. Mimlttinc »«• mhNl«.
jcrtpHon h..t ctj.n»l..»r th.. «m.r u,Kn. ih« pl.l,.tir. m^nt. m.1 II i. no .l^rtun..

». And U maM no dllhrwm thrt th. policy wm for . ,,w bXbr. th. Ar. in pMnltr. poiMMioa

«. Or th.t th« dlMmm to which r^flhr«no« w.. msde, both In th» liit.Hm nwUpt m4 In tb« DoUoy.
^> oorr<>.p.«d.d with th. d«Mrtptloa In th« polio,. ^^' 1 "^ '

This WM an »<;tion upon a policy of iiituranco i»»uoJ on the 7th itoy., 1800» .
covenng for one year from that Uiite, preini.es .loscribod in the polipy to follows : •.
«pn the bailding of a one-and-n-balf story house, built of and cjvored with
wood, situate on the north side of Cadieux Street, in the St. Jakn Uapti*2
- ? Village, Montreal, dttaehsdfrom other buildinga, owned by atnitk and oetw
**ined bjtr^r. Qoifrty and one Unant at dmllingi ; ae per plan^nd appUea-
" tion No. Q306,/yM in thi$ office.^ i" r ^ pp^

On the back of the polioy a notice to the insured was printAl roaniring biro \
to examino the policy and see that it was correct.

The plan referred to was annexed to a proposition signed «,Thoa.' Somens p«r
J. B. Homier''; and the description in the plan and proposition corresponded
with that in the policy, except that in the proposition the answer to a question
as to the nuBjber of tenants had been originally written "two," but a pen bad
been drawn through it, and no other, word substituted. Tho interim receipt,
dated 7th Nov., 18fiB, was also fyled by the plaintiff, and it also referred to |»i
pUn and proposition. A memorandum book was produced at enqveU^
Homier, who at the Ume of the insurance was the defendant's clerk, in whfcb
• an entry in the form of a notice had been made on \M» 7th November, 1886,
mforming the defendants that a house had .been erectol on one side of thi ri*^ ;
•ltd this notice was signed "Thos. Somers, pftr J.IJj|H." #

At the date of this entry the policy was renewet^and a few days afterwards
Ihe building was destroyed by fire. > '

TheDaoLARATioN set up tie policy, and followed the descnptioW cont«ned in
It, except that the part herein printed in italics was omitted, and.tliW words
subBtituted for it : « Which honse contains 80 feet in f^ont by 24-&ti depth;
and comprised four distinct tenements." ' ' ' C? /

The Pl«a alleged that under the conditions of the policy every persdn- d||ir-
ow of effecting insgrannfi mitf| dwariba tha nnnstmctioB of tha builjjiigi^ wlwW-

f

■^.!

^M^

vv

%'

■i\

' M.-

^

:'- ■' \ ■■

«ft

AtheiMMim iii>
"unuMM Society.

StTFERIOB court; 1858.

Old iMtrbr for the policv «> ♦!.»» ♦k ^. '™'^'' """^ '^ specially mentioned in
. .uch matter of dZS;^ be 1 I ""!.'*' 't'^ ""'^"''^^i ""^ t''** «' "
:oot and fulfilled ;^r£t;lr 7^^^' ""^ '''' "*'•" conditions carried -

entitled to any beneflt^ndne X '^ '""^'^ are,-tho.i„BuM shall not be

ing-; that inst ad of iwsLSttrr^lK ; ""^ ""'^^^^ »«' «'»>«' l>-? '
wa.Jn.hese respects dT^StJ^e^Sv T, " •' *^*' ^'^ ^'P^'^ '"-'^
there had been a false and S". f ^ \^ <^horm^ than it really was ; that
ofpUintiffiji^^e W^"^^ of the premise/op thepi^rt

con^quently entitled ^^SS^'^tSy '^^" ^''' '''''''' ''«' "

Whyddon. defendant •:^!::^^;::^,r,:^-o^^ relLier; that
tions for making the plan referred fn • » ». v *u T ^ ""*' ^^^^ '"^'^c.

wrongi!.as l^^Z^t^^^^^^:^^ - .th. poHcy wa. ,
' policy were Bropared: That when thl ^y^"""^^'^ ^^"^ apphcation and the

if any change had taken plaL in th!n ^ "^ ""' '■'"'^''^' P^''"*'^ '^^ »«k«<i
nectid witlfpelleti^JS^'r^r^^^^^ ;

and thathethen of^r^T^^ '::^l^^^

:,. and that he ^as told he wouldl ZS^J^"" *'"' '"'^''* ^'^ ^«^"''^<J»
was necessary. , S'^. '^^''' P*»t ^^ ^ ext^

T^edefepdam replied by a general ^swer|til«^^^^^^ |i^ '/'

^Ihe evidence as to,thb.point8 in issue ctfi»i^iL*i'^ '

o^Josepl^Whyddon, foA agent at l^^l^^K *? 'J^lr"^' *""™''"y '
Homier, formerly employed in their nd-. o, ^ .^J^m^''^'f^r^ "^ J- B. *

P"^P^^rtm effect sustain th^ assertion, of thnS^
v.z.,fhatthe.plan was made byHomier undii^'v ^P**''"' «««''«•>

who had previously visited th/prem s^^^ .' luhe In TT""' "' ^'^^'*^«' ^ ' '
signed by Homier, under WhyLllInJ . V " ^v^'''" *^fi"e.d W> and • ■
without having^reUedanS^Wfr^^^^^^^ «Uitho,4and

^ fillednp from^ehe plan and p ^^^^

-rrect rate for ^4 Attached bUdTnnj^^^^ ^'^'^^

would have been^chai^d had i^elkShTS^/ .^ * ^^«''*' ^>
finely, that the eo.^^„W tS^^r^^b^^S*^
m the special aWer.W ,* -^ T^'**^'v'®|^'/^ofe P»W a^te^

reserved. . ^t:^^ ^ ^^e defendants' Counsel, and the ol^ectipns

[the insurance

■■■■ dm

;■ '•

tin

:^ wr:

, '■

*:^ the

wa

.1 -^

• cle

/ tol

.->

■' ]

■ ■, ,

^ "gi

the

'•

nthe

: — '-S"

/ »'«'

««»°V'.-7

^^

^,Vx>^

t ■ h

■ \

SUfERTOK OOURT, 1868.

fl»

-*t.-.

>

^ with the pl.yintaff's by U.W wof;.and that for a time pending ^e po% the Mh.,JS«i,.
V premiBea had been occup,ed by four tenants, though such was not the oL at""*^"^^

the time of the fire, a..dwwji9tpi!OvUtoh^'reboen the cai4\att^
policy. ■ ' ., \ ' ■ ,'■ ■ \, , ■ , ' ■

The c.««w«H first argnedi^for^^m .

that the *we should ^ re-argiie.r«H to the suipbiency of the mode of bringing
4h« action, and the regularity of the ple^ng,^ repiaridng- that he tho^^
that the matters ^ged by th« pfcintiff in hi* answer d^^ildhaie formed ^rt
of the substantive a11egat,oniortKedecFaration,.rnai^«Ung^^^ he inclined to v
the pretensioiM, of the ^dofendant.i upon this poitft, though to those of the ' •
plaintiff upon the others whidfarosQ in the caie. The c«e was, therefore,
inscnbed for re-argument; and, qoming beforeTliis Honor Judge 'SmUh, was
^ re-aifued, pirerstty. >**■/*;- -^ ' • ";

CfaMWy, for plaintiff; stated the pl«d{ngkdeviden<^VMv^
erroneous description having been the act of t^ defendants, by th«ir own fgent
tOHid «ot afford tli«^m any ground fofr defeiiting tbi plaintiff's action. ' ' '

Abbott, for defendants, submitted in^ effect th4 following pr6i>o8ition8 a^
au'.hontied: — "^'r v-

First Thespecialanswercqnsfitutes 4 departure from the d0<Jlara#tir and
the evidence does^not support th(^apli|)n us it is set up ,'n the declaration. This
■ IS fatal. :'•; _- -^ ' ,' .-■; '• - .■ "'

Stepflien on Pleading, 412 to 41?. '3 Saaaders. (WilUftiis), 84 2",
Johnson, 160. Goold on P*ading, 457, 468.' ' /^^ ^ 'CT '

Second. The description in the polidy^' is a-wamnty, and every^tfarranty
mnst be literally fulfilled^or the policy is- Void.
..I^"^^^"'/^''' ''^'^- ***' 8e«j. t6^ p.,^ sec. fiee^p. ^9, srt. 868S^

Jin .orfo*" 'T^^l P- *"' """• ^"- ^ «"?' i»»- W Wendell, 92 j 16 Wta-

dell,481. 6Cowen,673. * Wendell, 270. ^ i' ^r "

" And this warranty is prmm^ry as wdlas'ftmative.^^^^^^"^ '^ - ' ^^
6run,47ft 1 Arnould, 681. 2 Duer, p. 667. lb., Note 6, p. m ■ V "

^ Third, ^his' representation or misdescriptioBu whether arjsiag from fraud or
negligence, avoids the^olicy; < " - ^ ■ « »

5"'^rnouid|>488, sec. 1M: ,- ' ' , ..', • ^ - .^ ' :

'^^r^^l^'^'^^^o breaches of w^rahl^i the house ^ktachfed-insteadfttP
<»tached; and had^ur tenants instead two. One house wak attached »t the
time of the execution of the policy; another w.as afterward? built, of which a

^ written notice was given in conformity with, the torfdjtion^ oT thftrttoHcy ; but "
the omission of the first was a manifest misdescriptfon, and a fatS brwch of i

■ warnjnty. It cannot be got over by the incidental mention of Jt to'ai^urider*
• cle* in a conversation of plai„tij|wi!h him-^^ if thiit cterkVetidefice we/

■ i^X'*!!^ * P^' ^^^''^ ^ change |^cdiitriwti*er^,a^misi«ibl6.
, Jio*^. Theapplication, with". plan annexed, i;iust be,taken to have 'been
. signed by Homier.for plain£ifl| with his authprity ; for the iatt^m receipt and

the poUoy refer specially to them, andlie'himself produces and relies upott both

30:

':m-

%.

4
#

■:«*

fl mtfi .<!^iimnntB/ Jht aotioo alw, wUjith he must aasMiin), and d6e<i aseujal t» , ^^^
«gned jn the sam| vy. AiyJ hfe cannot pfead igno5|nce of the erro*^ 1br h» - % ^ -

■ ' %° ■;

■■■.• '

'-L ». - V.-i

: jt„'_

■■-v'' ■'

'•■ •■■■»,/

"' 7^^' ■ ~

' «»

A

»,

m

10

Somen
v.

SUPERIOR COURT, 1888.

" 1e policy , i„d U.. buifdinVw^riM int. ", W''?*"" '° "' '''"• «'
of the policy. '^^"""""^'""'''"".'""■•'"Ib'ifchofth.ooDditio.i;

-. ,--^_." »"'i of Ibo conditions of th. ,Jolio). , ' • _ T "^ °' ™'??4:-

Dirlfht M. Pomroy, 17 Mass, 303. 'v> . . |^

/Mumingtbitt a mistake in drawin.^ a.fu-i / • i . , f
r i" -. ..Hon of covenant or w ittcT^ 1" S T^l" f'''^ ^^ P^^«'' ^«*
^-.^faeanagceementdi<ron>„tfrW^^^^^^

evidence, .a« not co^lS^S "p:^;::^ 'wt ^f W^^ "'^ ^^'^'^ i
have been made in -a settlemJ., fS - n "^ ,^™e,ij .hfeiaB w^»allegfed to '^*
on ,h. cvidencejf tlTe A S^^^^^^^ ^'^^ not.lL iUo be corrected " •

handwriting of the nllts to 1 ? . '"^ ' ^'"""'' ''^T ^«« '«>t^i°^ i« the: ^

^ E^ep^ only m cases whete ftand is ^Ileg^d: ^ ;■ , V ' . -. "

2Saunders^ pt 1, Loc. cU. 2.Pfii„ips on EvfU^ . , li-^l ' . ^.

with being tlfe aulor^the e'^^t"^^ " -^'^ *HdantsTh.m.elv5; ^

to es,ape^2^e lo^. i„ rhT/ ' IT^""' g>nck.si,vely proved iV To t« .
bette:,a!^:rt^^>^tt^^ w^d^honest. andlittlJ ^

P^> a^^ Jobbgiflff th« plaintiff, which thirCoaftcould

">■■" i-ii>'"ii"i ■III...II ■■ ri.i.w—i-Mi-1 ii—n w ■ iiii-ii I ■ .1 ■■■■I I. T IN I ■■■——

''^;

-^ ,. —

^"••t^'— ~p-

« i

^

^^

^•J

? ' .

#.

>

♦'

.A

\

SUPERIOR COURT, 1868.

. . . «

»1

not sustain. He contedded tbat it was competent for the plaintiff to prove tU Somew
nature and cause of the orror by parol evidence, as no other evidence of such AthonSLm:
error could be exp«Scted to be in existence; and no bettet tcstwjohy ^jould be '""'"* '«*'"•
obtained tha^, that of the i^gent and clerk of the defend.^, who, them;elve8
committed it. "^ - ! , *'

• Smith, JL-(After^ting the facts.) , I am ;tf opinion thUthQifiaintiff should ' ^ -

recover. The facts, «« proved by Wbyddqu and Homiei the Se th^ Agent * CR
and the other, the clerk of the defendants at the times of thjgexecutlon and ' • ' ' ^ '
renewal of th^ policy, clearly shew jthat the etmr in the -!« Jj^i^n arose en- ^' ^' ' ■
tirely from the act, of the X^ompany themselves, through their age*. •They ' '^ ^

prove there wa^ no misrepresentation ot concealment ^hat«4 «m |fie.p1tBt of • ' *
Somers, for he had nothing to do with the dei«3ription of ^f premisfl/^JiJr|b , , ' " "
*»' w^oHy: ttade out in Jhe office of tl^B^O^feodaafiflw^S^hedi
Whyddon. The diagram also was made W ITori^w[^aE»»itv*« a JSl- ^

Whyddon. The diagram also wa^ madeby nS^^S^Se^d^S^^

diagram were diffa-ent fronts ikl^deScriBti^ whicW the '
iven. ,..•*•■•• , , ■■ ■

in the policy and the
plaintiff himself had given
The ■ ■ '

. TJ..V -^t""^""? ^'^ ''^"^"•i^d also tha^ tfier^ was a breach of warranty.- .

• J} h**"?. j;S K r'/r*^"'" ^^^^^^ ^en rai^^4>y the pteadingsi ««*4 '
tdr the^alleged breach of the conditio,!^ of the policy, th&t only affected^he poliW

• TlJ^th '"" '''? "^.'''' ''°^'^''^" ""^ ?>«terial. . The several points in
which there^was misdescription on the face of ^he policy were not material, irf- '

■, asmueh as WhyddoH proved that the premium charged, was the premium prkr

• ortheinsurance-of an attached house, and not of one detach'ed from otL "

-ot the fire, thAfo'Ur tenants were in the premises. ,

„ ^^Jtf **^''"°" "f""^' '""^^^ admissibilitj. of parol^tece'to shew that '
-*S!l^?lifr T-^^: f^!^"^ '"'^ cviden<^admi8sibl#i&d.that the^ime- v'
,., durn^whfch the plaintiff hlld the policy. and the notice to hitn to. verify hs
TfTSJ^ . feet the position of the partJ^\ > Whatever may be the tenor' ■ .
otthewmten d^umciitk, no better evidence of -the c^use and nature «f the '
. . .errors contained, -th^ can be fodnd than tfi'e testiniony of the persorts under
.^^^^^'^^'^^ wore drawn and, Vuted.Sd tbe e'vidence P.

h' ^ ,jJS' P^etensicfts of the defendants that there has been a departure iir the
I ,*>f pleadings, IS also^^I think, i„ca|pable of being sustained: m plaintiff declares
- -.^;P««*|^;cy. The defendant says there is misdescription, and claims a for-

'tZJ^ ^''P] ^^Z """^ "P"««' ''^^^-^ '^ misdeicription U Is L
defaidaJjtJflowp&ult. Thiffis not a departure. It is merely a idnd#r of issu!

Xt^^^^J^-!'^^ to the L of an aetW on ?pZlr4 no «
promise. The action jnust be maintained. .' ««1 o »

■■.' ,- ,' . ■•■*''^

. ^Man0<^i;am4»,{6rmintiff: ^ Judgment forPhdntiff.

X

T^lJ

J--..,

■j.

a.

^

12

SUPERIOR COlfRT, 1858. '

•V

, 1

MONTKBAL. SOTH DBCBMBBR» I8W. *

' Coram BADOuir, J.

•
1 ■ ■

{

■

■ tei

«»•

McDonell vh. Ore,«c/- a/i«. Cmier, am? the ,aid Otemer Oppoewit.

'• \ OPPOSITION— MOWOH. • .

""^"Tn^S^'ttoli"'"^""'" "-^^ "'"''t*^ conUlnin^frivolou. orliu-uiBdcnt gjounU, wlU be Hrfeot«l

*: »■ • , \ ,f- , - ,.."■'.

Badglby, J.— This is an oppdsitiob d /» d'annuiler made by th» defeiidant

to ajru ot Venditfoni Exponas alleging as groundB, firttljp; that there was

iMread^apreyiousseiauropf thegocJsj^nd that taisie mr ,amV n« t-au* •

8epondlj,U.at the 8tBount%I»imedbjo^e writ wa^mW^t^^^ wM wad due. .^

tMTdly, general grounds of irregularij^jr. 'f h* j>Uintiff faw m#ed'to fejeot tfe^

opposition, u. Becau8Mj««e wjtop^ ordSr of « judge for iho oupositioi.'whioh

-Wismade to awritof/e«<Worfii;;^«a,. 2o. Because tin- opp'.Hifcion did

not state how much Svas due bf the defendant while objecting to tlie amoui^

.-demanded. 3o. Because the opposition did not state the cause in which t|*

.„jr?or seizure was made. ; The sola questioq with me is whether thift oppositioiT

V can be rejected on motion in .place of ademurwr, and I think it can. '

*ii-

OuinUt, Morin & Marchand for JPlaintiff,
Bondy & FaUteux for Pefendantfl, .

■ V * * if'

^' -

(*.W.T.)

r.<

r'

%

UONT^BAL, 89TU IfOVBUBBB. IIM!
y^ Cqram Simtr, f. ^

]^otioo granted.

J

V'

x'^

,if^

■^oo'e.V, PeMionV, vs. Wardley, et. <rf.

„ ♦- v raXmON EN BB8TITUTION »« TPT^ILB,

^''JdSL' r"X'*t?f ''■! "^ •^fi^'r^&^-i'-r h« . right tol^t .j
^ «w» /If ri.<rffa,wheta the minprhM no ltin.«rwtaU»e within C»n»d».

.J»»«P«f;"n^ bjrhis petition that the ini«r

" had no relatives m Canada. ^ • ji^ij^ .* ^

drnulrf''^^"'^ coptesirnlt^e pet(l^|^ed amo«g oA«r Heis a A^lntM
rfro,< or demurrer, whereb^^they alleged that the peTitiou cOuld not be ittBin-
t»ned, because the iTelitioner had failc<Wp Meg, ihat h« is a relative or of U»
to the minor m the pelitio;i mebtionecrpr tliat he has^ny qimliiy, by mmm
whereefand by kw Jm is entitled, ts Jy]e the said,£etiuon for itiinff aside md'
an^Hm^ the appointis'euj pf the' «aid Wardley as tutor to the said minor. "
^ Jfedwell for defen<Jant«, contended that"the«£!|tute-41 Geo. 3,cap. 7. s. 18.
£7J tbejelatives and -k« «f rig^t to pre&nt the petition enMtukon de
tutelle, mm* be oonstrued stiMlyrasthe i)rivilege.of ft^ next of kin. .nA n.f «.

■U" "■'-'■ '■■■i-iiiii !■■ •• » ■■ ■ ■' i ■■ ■ - ■i.iii«r.iiiMi. 1 1.. i^iii..iw,.r|...i 11 ifciM^T .11, iii-p.^

^

y

«■•*

•V.

'^.

V.

..^J>■# ' J 't

?y

' '^

.-^..

f

SUPERIOR CdURT, !«»«»

78

f-

tended beyond. the particular case mentioned in the stotnle; and that other
persons had the common law remedy by an ordinary action. He cited H Geoj
8, 0. 7 8. 1 8 and exparte O'Meara, 1 L. C. Jurist, 195. „ >

■ CiiMu(ycon»ra.-^t^'. ^ ^^ . ■ ' '^ ■ ..J

The demurrer wns dismissed on thegi^und thitt the allegatipn that the minoj
had no relatives within Canada, took the petition out of , the 'ordinary rule limi
itmg the petition to re^tivoa and noit of kin. - . {

•not , .. .' " ^ », ,i • r)emurrer dismissed.

/;. ^roi^N«, for petitioner.

(7a««(</y, <:oun8el.

C?. J?. iBet/wtf//, fer defendants.

(F.w.T.) ~'^ '

Ooolqr

X

■y^-

'«,"

^

.,--..vvB;-

MONTREAL, 30th DBOEMBER, 1868.
P Coram Badoucy, J. -

y

-JBity et W vs. i/iwWw vir and Judd et vir^ Opposants.

- OPPOSITION TO Fenrf. JKr/).—0IUCDlT8 NOT OWJtN.

^ *d«i^.S^t2^H , •"-?'"°-* -^^o— win be mintained where hmd «. r«»« hw been
*lverti»ed to b« Mid in uiother purUh thm w^ere it is litusted.

-In this case, the Plaintiffs, after obtaining judgmonf against D. me Content
J«dd, OM,of the Defendants, for a sum of £52 128. 7d.. with interest and costs,
took owe a writ of Mi facias against goods and lands, under which a consider-
able sum was levied from^e.sale of the goods and chattels, and by the judg-
ment of distribution afterwards rendered^ the Plain tiffi,.and their attorneys were '
^located altogether for £75 6,; 1 Id. on ac^unt of debt, interest, ' an\l costa/.
J^o lots of laad were seized undePthe sa* writ, but were prevented from
being sold by an opposition a fin de charffe, which was subsefientl^ dismissed. 1
A vend^bam «arpo««« was then issued for the sale of these lots, ^nd itwaatalhis
. yrnt that tte present opposition a Jin d^annuller was fyled by the Defendants.'
Three pounds were alleged by the opposants, viz.: 1. That the mbveableW
p«ny of the «id Dame C. Judd had not beep fully" diseuflsed.'k part of #Kat •
-^sejzed refining unsold in consequence of an oppositiorf/Jtt^ efi,/„,i,^^
^«%led byon|I>r.Dorioir,whichwas stiU pending afid undet^wiftHd; 2, that'
Aelotewete ^uated in different parishes, aftd were, no^rftfctabjSng, ad^er-
tised by^the S^riff to be sold in the same parish : 8 J^p^eyiouiJyf'totU
issuing of the mndttioni exponas, the Plaintiffs and thei^ wleyS'tAd reoei>el
wmftderaWesumft on account of the judgment, riz„4h«tH^ already «£y
.«o^ed as awa«ifed to them by ^KHg^ent otdjM^^t ^hjch or^V •
_m^t been given, mr anfAf>nn<^x^mai, i8-fte:Writ,^^#op8ition con-"
poinded with a pi^er t%tAthh vf^Ui^i «^„a| iho^ld be set aside iftiliiallv '
l^^ 6^ tiWit, irm (J^^mM .r,Uf |hesale,oMhp h\»inamJmM
Vdne|oif,*th«i^, si^ akUiyliBI Us^.^a^.^a %^ nL :^.j.' v_*j, .7 .. ^^^

>

'•V. ^yK4,r^».Aft,if,^'B,^

s«i^

Ht b/ diw iwd i^ame a j^. The 'iad,|ro^i4

><^'

h t

'If'^

.X.

W.4;''*^<Ki

"tr

*:

M.

/^

*>

■-.>:(,,

,Pr

74

\

. SUPERIOR COURT, 1888.

,.»^'

Bity
Jttdd.

>■'%

X

,*?

♦ . J :, ^erenaanis, it t^ clioso, andfiol of the riaintiffs. to have «nn

tested t e opposhion of Dr. Dorion. .M dcnLr and.ne al In ler ^o e
fyled to tins .on eatation, but no j.Rjg,„ent was/rendered on\ the laTiZe the '
part>e« being ordered to go to proof amni faiXdroit. ' ' '

on Vh« i".''"*""^ '; '^' """■""' ^"'"*' '■^'^^■'^ OPP°«"'^ ^«W he relied chiefly
on the 3rd mo.en, the 2nd being admitted as affecting oW tot, and cited the

a similar grbufid was set up, and was maintained by the Court of Queen's
Ben^h lie contended .tjjat the cases were - exactly analogous • thar«Uhou^h
U -as true the jud«m4|^f dist^ution, ^^er wiZ the jl^i&^t Sd "
, payment of ^Po^i^ o^- their debt, was ^no^^L a consideraW^^^^^^^^^

the. day appo.nted for the sale under the X/«. yet. that the MtlwHt w^-

not entitWd, or, at all events, it was not necessary for them, to 'fvle th^r
opposition to It i if tl.^ chose t6 trust to th« Plaintiffs not to allow their p'ope2
to be ^oid for more than was actually du^, surely this could not bo n^de th^ ^
foundation fora ch^^fo of negligence against Ihem. They were alar^Vd, ho|! "
pver, when tlie^awlhe venditioni exponas issuea for the Whole amol of ^L
jl^^^nt^, interest and costs, without any notice being taken of previbus

^BA*eLEv,J.-After8tatingthefa9t8;referrWtotbeca8e^f^o«^^^^ '

^tmd said he must foll6w the rule laid down by the Court o{-Queen>s BenchP He
would accordingly give judgment, maintaiai^g «he«biyposVqi^\^uh costs., and
SMenng all proceedings under the venditioki exp^» to be stayed until tl» ba-
iaFce d ue by the defendant should . be aspertained. • ' . r» >

The judgment was drawn up in the fottowijiff, terins :--,'^ The Court, ho-''
;; consideiing that at the issiio of tl^e yfnioi Miti<y^ e^poria/de terrisi^^tkl '■ '
cause issued, there had beenje^^ie^ of the^oode ip* chattels. of tftedefeifdant.
Bame-Content Judd,fin virtue of the wflt of execution issued by the pliintitf
against the said goods and chattels, lands and tenemettte, divers sums 6f moaeK
which have not been creditecJ to her on tiie face of the said writ of venditiJ!u
ejx»ias, issued agaiwt s.id lands ;,,^nd tenements, and considering that the '
advertisement of sale of the lot of land secondly mentioned 'in the Sheriff '« '
adv.rt,s,mentof the «.leof thesaid lands and tenemenfs is Irr^ufar, inasmuch
«"L l?''V^' «aidI,^of l,pd was so adyar«ise.a>to beIld<i)«tS
chtirch door of the Parish of St. Marti< instead of that of tlie Parish of 4 * *
Rose, the parish of the locality of the said lot, doth mWntain the opposant's
l^o^sitio^to the extent aforesaid, to wiVdftth discharge the said Vrit^f ..„. -
r dtUon. exjH^s quant dp^sent ol jjnc) thVsaid l(fi^)lnd secondiy deacribed. ^ "

*\

y

^-■%i-^,^ *

)

7...

-^ ': ■

■ ■ - . ■ " '(■

SUPERIOR COURT, 1Q88.

15

** and doth order that all pT<>ceeding8 un'ifier the said writ of vmditufni esepom*
** in this oaiine iMiied, be suspended unrtil such time a^ the Plaintiff shall "have
•' fyied.With the said writ of wndilioni exponas, ot any other such writ hera-'
** after to be ii^saed for proceeding to tlio sale of the said lands and tonementct
i* » stateiQont showing the exact balance to be levied under tl»o sftid writ ; the
" whole with costs, dec." ' ,.

JP^ ■" .. ' Op|>osition maintained, i,

^efan^rer, for 'plaintiff. " ., '.

Hemining-tt, Lunn, for opposanL
(A.H.t.)

t

HOKTREAJUSUT DECEMDGB,'18SS.

, . Coram Smith, J. ?
I " . Pf^ar4int vs. Banque du People. "^

ADUtl-VlOA^AJKC-^DSFIOIBNCV IN LAND — RB0OUR8E. '

m

•■ H-

Betd,— Tint »ii action Wufrbtby an atfjudi^iataireot real property again«{'a party as PlaintilT, pour.

tttieaut U diortt, to rBgovor the ytkliitj ef • deflolbnoy in the extent of land aold, cannot be brought

(t«j)(c6»a^,Until «uch(JqIlolency shall hatoUeoK<fiit»i>lii«lioa in an actton t»rerorm the BhwrilT'ii titla

iP^PM;*® *'■« atUttdic^^iaire, and c<yrect t|ie de8o^|itioi| (tf the Quantity of land^ to which action

the p^fWJKJpa** and l^ho «a»« rauai he partlef, !*

%i th«t until Buoh dofloiendjr be so <8cerUinod, the tftia Rrikl^teil by the SheriiT oporatea as a bar to any

' i, ■*""" merely P«nional agaliAl the Vlaintiff, ppu¥»uiv(Lnt U ditrH, as having received the proceed*

of tl^ sain, Atid.is conoliuivc evidanco of the qnaryiity of land «oid,«nd c6ij^Tfl«red, as between tho

, .FUlnti|7attdI>o^endaitt,ttntiUtbetogallj!<^|«tssideorreirorq^; •

The Plaintiff Was purchaser, at Sheriff's sale, of "* certain 'property seiiied ^nd
sold under a writ oi, venditioni exponm, in a case of La Banque du Peuple i;«.
Donegani, and brbiig^it the pre"^!! action to recover the value <rf tin alleged de-
ficiency ijf its quantity.' "The (Jeclajati^n set-up at length the ShjEnriff ^s ^ed, of
date die 8th NoVembiiBr, 1864'f by virMcTi it wij^ dcclaned tli«it the pro|)erty in
qiaestiou, therein deseVibed as «iJne terre en fief relevant* foi ct horamage
" »itn6e k rexts^mM outet de I'lsla Petrot surle e^ ojPjpos* ji Vaadreuil con-

* tenant cJBiatll'e cents arp6nt8, o'e8t-a-j^ire,,tout ce qttj pent «e |!rottii^^r dans les
.*' Ihniteis 8oivaifi!e8, k partir de la*ligne Jean Mor^au au 8ud-6ue»t, -euivant le
"Was de la riviere s^parrfht la dite isle Perrot de f]»]&' de Montreal et 8'6ten-
** dant vers le nord-est au terrain des repir^cfesentaas^anisse, d^lilaUant dans une
" diEectj(»i aud-eat, le longW|»«iigne dee Jite rep«8«ntan» Janisse, jnsqtfil'in."
" t^rseoSon'de'ladite ligne'avec c«llo de Joseph L^loode, aveo . une maison,
"^ bangard etautre8l»Ati<»e8d688U8 conatruitesi" ha^l Wn in due w^arse oAM-ed
for sate by tbeSherit at public auctioa, and had been adjudged and sold to the
now Plaintiff -at tiie best and highest bidder, ft the price of eleven hujoidred
poipda. 1 " " i /'

' The d«claratioB then «Il^ttd |hat in . oon^deriiliwi of the said ptt^hase "
itonw, paid in tke nv&nii^r acknowledged in the Sherifl's Deed, the Sheriff
hereby d^ared to hi^v^ •* ced4, donn6, vendu et, traasportd an dit FrancotB"'
Xain^r DeajArdins ia dit» terre et d^pendances ainai qn<* mentionn^ au com- '

* mencemeot du dit aote de veBta, sise et sito*«cohin«) s^adiii et coatensnt lea

" dita qnrtTB osate Mpaw m <H)oilUji^ ofr >ua>i too* at cihauuu lea Jwito, IJUir-

Bsty

VI.

Judd.

¥1

4.

.-,*

"W""-,-

\

If^^^x'jjr'

. ;_{.^'f5SB|p?rf^^^7»r* ,

v

n

SUPEKIOR COUKT, I8fi8.

/

■t»i

'*••

" dite c«u.e No. 60 oii I» «-„ V f' ™l''*^''^*« P«^ '« «»" 'h^rif d.ni 1«

. " f't p«,*e p,r lo dit ah4Hf, 'an vmu dW jtemc^; 7!;: P '"^"'1 * V
" I» dite cauM le r? fovrier I ««i A 1 1 . J"»«™^'"t ^e celte Cour rendu daps

'Ma cr^ance pour Ial!j, I '^^1''' '■*: "^^^^^^

" Donegani. ^.' ... ^ ' * d't?^%.'l«o d.. Pouple avait pouniui vi le dit John

--- --encore actuelle^entT'rS^i'^tTt^^*"''^ "^''^^

"c'estp^^erreurel en\on,6q«,„rliiiHrlil ^^'■" '" '"'•''*"'•" ^"«
" term no contenait one lfl« «! *^ ^ '''' '"" 'fi"°™nc« q"e la djte

Thf Defendant met thtfactfon,

^fjl.

/

'■»' .-■»-

J.i,.Li,

./^

\M

. Q ., r"^^-

0'

0 )..

' .'BuwRRioB eoxrW' isss*.

V -

11

( V

-«*?::^-

\

?*? **'^ **" '^**4i*" ''''^'* '*"^''* deoJiiTBtion, the PWntiff l>ii|d purab«Md «B» Icai iBN«*M
v„ 0Mmip«orp«, ak)5in^epmprisfl(i within giv«ir limit*. , 1 1* ""

} 2nd. By » poieropldtjr exueptiou to the effect thlit the dMKjription of th» pn^
j>«rt7 WM got hy thf flhoriff from Donegani «nil others without Vefefflooetp th«
;0dr«nd«nt; that the laiul had b«jin sold not by meaauro, but aa a eorptetrttdt*^
bairiBif defined |imit»; that the iH^ntiff hod vi«it«| th«j>wipet4y and knw
iU con'tenta ; that^m^roperty having Mlongod'to.Ifei^gani, and b«on sold on
his account by the Sheriff, it wj|a neftcaaary to (bake him, Donegani, a party to
»ny auit for dirainatioq of price, aa being the paijty directly interested in tho a^lej
that the prqpeodaof the sale had been reduced by^ottrUin »mount for-^^,
. before being pai.| to jhe DeronilHiita ; hI«o jhjit \ho miHitf, if he hadifever bid
• gooU ground.of action against tho I )i9fet»dHnt, hi«4 \mx it liylus noglota to notify
the Defendant within » reMaonab!ir< iii«te alleffek taking possoa^oii of ^ tlie land,
of the deficiency ; in «^nsequenco of which lifigteiSt the Pufbp/lant^^d partAd
with a largo amount of stock, held in th» bank by Donegrtnl, liow insoW^ no'd
was without any meauH of meeting tlK)TUintiffV<tUin k. I ^N^
«rd. By n "econd pi<rcmptory ox«!eptiAn, Hlle«ittg^ th^ tliel^JHintiflf harl re^
ceived al'oady from the Grand Trunk Bfeilwa/tivrnpiiMy, Tor right of wayUhd
materiHlH taken from the land for the ,;Conrtr«otioij o( the rnilway^ tho sum of
£900. and hml moreover derived ]ari{.«'|^rofit8'fr«mi flro-wooti sold from the itrad
and from a ferry pertaining to tiie sarii^ ; that, therefore, tlie piaintilT's ^n\y a*^"
tion «oald be to resiliite the deed of iJilo, on his offering to renH^r' account ofiill.,
he bad recoivediiom the land. ' i ; ,, ' ' » , • "

4th. By a third peremptory oxcepiioD setting out that, supposing the Tlakl'tiff
to ^ve ft legftl claim upon DefendanI for some portion of the prtce, suflh olafm
could be for no gre8tert)roiporth>i/c*- tho price than thjit t»,hielf the value of the
part of the land of which he haiMbeen depriwd, boje to. that of the part"of
which j^as in possession, withoi/tj-pgrtrdfr to superfick-s, since the part which
he hadWivsd' was of much greier value, by reason of the buildings upon it,
and the fePy, than an equal extent of s^rficies without those advantages.
*■ 6th, By a general denial. / . "^

The Plaintiff replied specially/to the firtt ex«4tion, that he was unaware of
the deficiency unlil'shortly bofori the institution of his action ; and tothfe third
exceptidn, that the value of the/buildings and ferry was trifling, and of no ac- "
count fe comparison with that M tlie land sold. To the ««>»uA exception qn
answerJn law was pleaded, avferring the Plaintiff's right in law to pursue the
Defendant (as ha^ying^ brough/ to sale the property in question) for compensa-
tion ; and alleging that the Plaintiff had his choice, either of an action w retili.
ation ou nuim de dieret, gt of tha action wlKch he noW brought, without lys ^
being olfgig^ in anji way to account for the profits or to offer to abandon the
land. , ,■■• ,.v

Issue having beep joiiied, the case was heard on the demurrer and the answer
in law, .and tfa^ following judgment was ren^red by C. Mondbiet, J., on the .
80th Apr^), 1868 : ,. . r , '•'.'"''<•

J*Oour etc., con9id6rant que la dAfepse en droit plaid^e par la D^fende-
—^flst mal fondle en-

^:.

\"..

fnn<l^e <?n jtatant qiril nwt nllngnn j^r la DeaaauJum' on m dOeU-

/»' »

\'

^

•^'

/'•

8UI EinOR c

^Jta*

)•

t

" ration .[tto llrtihiuuble dontMlyn ouwllon • i^**- ^' / .. *

fendant firs fj,|ed a rf./m,e «, rfro,7 to the action/ butA waa'di^^^^^^^

Defendant also pleaded Boveral grounds of defence a^stllTe^l^^^^^^ . ,

a/^ entire and with giv^n boundariee. ^r cor;,, and"not by ouant^ a] J

no^fvhetfi^rT'"'"'^^ -

notify the Defendant, withm a reasonable tinfe, of the alleged deficiency ani tba!

th. Bank consequently allowed certain securities it heldlr t)on3; Abt L '
ment rests npon another ground. w *'J » *

It ismuintained that a Pl«intiffpo„„«i.a„/ferf.^^/„isthe<;^rofihe^« "' '
^a«rj and there is no doubt that he n,ay be so, under ceLn Jr^^^ "^ ^
When th« loss sought to be recovered is attributable to Wm, the W FrZ*
would m^^h.m the ^ara„^ And the authorities go to shew tha an 1^ ■

ta^re may co^e against the,p.r^n la^ colfccated L moniir;" "S '^ "

rt the immot^le sold, the presumption being th.t"»ach p«n»on ha, rec6imT>- .

/ -,

'lli.

- -—■—-- ■ _t:Xr- . I ' J

vr. •'

W.

I'\'

/ ''

/

/
/

/*

7f

■^

Miv«<l from th« mM \km web «„ .ollon \h *. «ow brcniirht f I think noL

Lhafo ^.o Ci»^mi,Mim au* taUUt rMU, arjffljiiutw pro- ■'
;re on tU |>oint of tli4 tninafer of tdHKa to tha '
- otow ttiAt m Sheriff i, bound |1H#i1 to dve
'»fc««h r^prwnu tJmt ffivon by the «3E«. 'Hh.

Vendor; the .•!„ i, ooppulnory, through the fcgenoy of th«

*!.•« na»^.' . ! ^T'^^ '"**' '•'• '"'"^'' «"' •«"• 't for the benefit of ^hi

^r^/SK^ h" ^ 8h«rirk merely the ^at of the «i«. «„u g|^

., •title In-^hc latlor'. befjaK; though Jn his own name. IIi» title 1. th«t «^.Jk ■

Sh^r r'*^''*^!^'-'' -^-'•-^ ttieiawforcea hi";'^' J^ ol^^^^^
Sheriff. ^When «,g,ve«.tbe title » auth^nlio, and mu.t be taken to l^T aoJ
fending botw«,n th^ partes to it. a. if . voJuntair conveyancTra^ bl TaSl
% thp Defendant. «ow then can an action be feonght. rf. ^Lo ont alW^J '

or r^ol'r WSX ; te i>2t7- "'"^^^ ""«'^* *« ^ ^"''^^^^^ \
,«-«i I . , T.\ * ?lwntiff w concerned, aa adjudieataire it {• '

concI^,,vo ^|«,^ hi^ «„ti, tho ,rror. if any exi.t. i, r ctified fi^ . a t ' ■

Conrt, the Defe„danta^^b»^-„g.bei^ ^p^.^^ by the Sheriff.the fom.er i' laiJ^S -'
«V^««««.«n./.rf^*^j^«„d the Plaintiff «.thcr«<^^^ ' :

^w«uld,^hen be in^* p<|.ition to deeide. It i. the nuUiU de dicrii whtJ 3
r»e p ihe «,»!«« 5brl„aen,ni8cation,ji„d the plaintiff ahould hato Cn brik

"^rZfl:i"''r f««-*«<lj" the setUement; and. the deficiency /Au, .
mK»r«im!9M>e «rf;«A«,to.re would have hia reconrao against the party or d«n

juU,o„t,es See Herico»rt p.802 ; Rep.de Juri.p. vo. • W;W««/.o» » 3
I Bourjon^Cn«o9, art. 131 p, 781 ; Nouv. Denisart p. 87 No 7) • ^^f
. The judgment of the C<^rt was recorded aa follows J— - ' * // h .^■

. aath, fatted R» establish that V Jaw any such, action as. that which ia bow '

I BAld Plniriti<r «/^ ><w»v.„.. e . ^l- tx.^ . .-.'., » - ,—. ™ v- -»-.

« Jr> ^^"?'' "*«*.^''"a^'ff to "-e^ovcr from the Defeftdanl tBe valuri^ The
*11T7 ^^^'»!^}«^ cWtned by U,e p^sent action, e,i.t. in aw
■1^^' ''"?^ *'** Fch deficiency of laid, the vilue ^ which is J^
f BOugh U> he recovered in and by the present i»cti,*n. ca>» only be legally settM
^^X^T^rri! «"«<»-*"P«- of the quantit/ofla^ 1^

* to £«i^^ T'' T^'''' ^ ''^"^^^^ '^ *^« ^'^^''ff o' this distki^^
««^/^J^'l"Ty""^^''^'^*^J"*<'«*^°°°'''de by the said Sheriff, by autfaoritv

##

/

1?

*l

^ I

•w

I I

I'

/

♦i ^t 4 -"••••.«"»«'. ^u,.«ajuOToaHon maae by the said Sheriff, by authority

*«offhw; nnd fi»lj.o.^ou,fdeiiug lUa^ ll)f th.yurposeaof conve^g-thel^

■ ^ ■ ; •

' J '

^

t

«

■■":'''

"■■; •

1

*

r-

■ .

•r

#

<

•-f^

■-■

)

■*-.

.r ■

1»>

■n — - — rr

^

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

■A

M .12.5

i

22

I.I

1^ ii£

111:25 i 1.4

LW

\

■K

v-y

..Sciences
Ccffporation

23 WESt MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. T458Q

.(^T«)«73-4S03.

^>^^^
^^^

■ 4^'"»

»• \

/

80

SqPERIOB COURT, 1858.

DeiJfitlilU
F»upl«.

" to the land s > sold and atJjudicated, the iwid. Sheriff u hy law the repraaenu-
" t'v« of ••'.« P«'ty. Dcfendimt, on whom the said adjudication waa made^Aod
" Ihat such .lefi.ionty, if any 'exists in the land so conT^yed, can only be asoer-
" taincd in an aoUon in which the said Mitt is a party, as being in law considered
" the vendor, a.ting hy the said Sh^iff as aforesaid, together with the jN>tir«tt»-
" oant le de^it and the adjudieatatre, who alone in such case, as parties to the
" adjudication, are litfitimea eontradictevri in such contestation ;

" And further, oonsidtMng that until such deficiency shall have been so esta-
" bi;*hed, the title granted by the said Sheriff operates as a bar to any actioa
" merely personal against the said Plaintiff as having received the proceeds of the
•' said sale and adjudication of the sajd la«l, knd, being in full force and effect,
" is conclusive evidence in Jaw between thejiaid Plaintiff and the said Defendant
" of the truth of its contents until it shall have been legally set aside or reformed,
" the Coiirt do; h dismiss tfiie action of the Kaid Plaintiff with costs."

Action dismissed.
' Laflamme, Lajfamme A Barnard, for Plaintiff.

CAw/er, Dor ;©« <fc Z)orton, for Defendant.
(WiP.G.)

MOMTRBAL, tSo DBCEMBBB, 1859.

f ■ "

: * ' No. 2468. »

ffonacina vs. Bonarim and Qundlack, Tutor, 0|.^.0)>ant

^ WILL OUNSTRUCTION. »

Held.-That a will jjcislaring that s term of the testator thould bo held by Ue male hein of the t«s.
tator-g famWj in the manner thcrninaften limited, and then g;ivinK onfhalf to William and his
lawfkil malo heir after him, and onchalf to Duhcan and hi* UwfUl m^e heir after him • and. in
the event of William or Duncan dyinK without lawful heir or iaue. iivit* the ihare of Urn m
djing to the-survivor; and. if both nhould die without UiU|| lMue.klving the (krm to SoDhia
Mackintosh, and unto her eldest son on taking the name of MoteUntoah : and. to pnivent all miiaoB.
rtnirtion, declaring that the eldest ton of WUUam and the oldi^aono^ Duncan and no other oould
Miherit the fkrm, does not mean a bequest of the farm to the eldest sro of SophU MacUntodL—
William dying without issue, and Ounoan dying leaying no son ind only a daughter -so Ion...
Duncan has a daughter. ^' ' '•"^^

This case came heforc the Court on an opposition <ifindedi8traire,miA^
by the opposant, John George Gimdlack, in his qualit^ of tutor to William
Gundlack Mackintosh, a minor, claiming as the propertrf^ of the opposant, in hia
capacity of tutor, certain immoveable property seixed uhder a judgment tmixai
the defendant, as the property of the defendant

The OPPOSITION set forth the will of the faite Williarii Mackintosh, of date the
6th g^ptember, 1841 ; whereby it was alleged, among lother things, his farm at
Lachine should be held and enjoyed by the male heIn oi his (the testatqd's)
- family in the manner thereinafter limited ; that ^ to sa«| he gave and beqneiU^
nntohis son William Mackintosh, and unto his kwfui male heir After him, for-
*™'^-^ f*rj? *!?? '^ °f *••* Province would permitt one-half of the said pro-
- . perty ; and next he gave ind betjimrtlMd agto hu second son, Duncan Mackin-

tosh, and his lawful male heir, forever, the other hblf or ^ «f t|^ said property ;

\

/

©

SUPERIOR COURT, 1888.

81

Uwru.,.„, ehe„ andir rtt r^^^^^^^^

order to prevent ....i.eo„4t:rL^^^^^^^^^

the 8aid Duncan Mackintosh, and the oldest son of fh- -^ t . * "''^"'^ """ **^

and no other; nuaning ikereby, «»/notAri^orM''^'' ^ ''"■'''"^''^•

Thatthesaid William MackbtoT^ t" ^ *''"*^^'■'^'y«'^«'A•■»'•
23rd February, IB^.chi.^ltdt;:^^^^^^^^^^^ o-f ^ ^e
property thereupon became the property of and vlt^!^' th . n "" ^S'''"*
intosh, his brother, subject to the dauses a^d.!!!!? ^ ^ ^'^ ^''""''" ^'^X^'
last will. "**"• ■■"* conditions set forth in thi»-2f^

That aflerwards, to wit, on or alfout the 28th June 18-54 *h -a a . •
Mackintosh alsodeparted this life, leaving the said Vm\l a!^ . IT^ ^"P'''"
her eldestson, and heir under a^d in v^t^lt^^Trasftir' ''"^^^^^^^
^ That artSrwards, to wit, on or about the 28th May Tssfl I'l. • Tt.
Mackintosh, mentioned in the said last will, also deparS t .1 1 .1* ?""'""'
a son or any male issue of. him, the saij Dunltlv ^^^^^^
Lachine property; and the said miLr child wSLm a "^^^^^^ "*''"' '^'

was, and istheonly lawful male heir as well of trZl^rWl* uT *"''
asof.the.said late Duncan Mackintosh; and the slirL K *" ***''''"*^''

became vested in him. . ^ ^"^''""^ Property, as such,

. That in the terms of the said lant will «.<• «k

and by law. thewhole of the ^ Lae:i Ipertr^ '''^ ™"" ^-^•"»-''.
vested in the said minor, William Guad TrwdMn ^ " Tr'^ "^ ""^
only lawful male heir of the said late Wil^m Mackt, \ ^^ f ''" •*^'"« '^"^
but also as the eldest son of the BairirSo^^Jt v*"i'^^ '^"°«"»'

mentioned in s^d last will, by her l^^^.^t^^^^ ''''"'' "^ ^^
^ That the real estate seized in said cause" and advertiEt^ u

3 4ore E

me plaintiff contested this opposition and hir » -.
TiOK, alleged in terjns of the WHUhe Lrest ofth« r !I """""°"^ "'^•"
liam and Duncan Mackintdsk; tha aftTrerri <^tr • ^ T^*'*^ *^ ^"-
Willia^^^Kntosh, the testator, deZ^TaT^^ JZ T" *'^ "'''
rem,i,dor J^ the estate, whatever and whare^erl^of Jt .""^ ""^''"^"^ """^
quality s«v»r «ibe same might be and n^t thZn W ^ "*'"'"' ^"'^ «'
hedid thereby give and be'ueath thet^ r^^'^J^^;.-^ <''«l^ of.
Mackintosh, to be equally divided between them L ' ^T ""*' ?""'''*"
them should die without lawful heir or is^uT^l t T ""^ **' *"*^«' «>f

-dying to the survivor; and iftth ;;;:«?: ^^^^^^^
then gave and bequeathedfthe whole of Z SJ^nepr^^'y''' T"" ""'
remainder of his estate „nto Sophia Mackintosh. arSCel^ 1^

Bouarln*

f.
Iluiiaviita.

/

;\'-

\

89

SUPERIOR COURT, 18W.

Bnnsclim

<i.

w

taking the name of Mackintosh ; and, to prerent all miwwnstruotion, that hit
intention was that the eldest son of the said William Mackintosh, ami the eldest
son of the said Duncan Mackintosh, and no other, could inherit the said property
at Lachine; that the latter clause was put in the said will bj the said Williaai
Mackintosh ^9 explain that in tlib bequest ho had made to William Mackintosh
and his lawful m^le heir after hiro, of one-half of the Lachine property, and to
Duncan Mackintosh and his lawfuf fflale.hfiir^jho other half of the said property,
ho only meant by the words lawful male heir, ther~d4<]||of the male children
of t'iieh of the said William and Duncan Mackintosh, to the Mdhuum of all tl^eir
o(!ior male children.
Tliat the testator, William Mackintosh, died a', out the 18th Febru^, f842.
That the legatee, William Mackintosh, died without issue on or .about the 23d
FeWnary, 1842, and his share in the said property'seized in this cause thereby
reverted to the said Duncan Mackintosh, his brother, as it is admitt^ by the
said opponition. , ' . .-^

That the' said Duncan Mackintosh, married the said Dame Agnes Bonacina,
from which marriage, was begotten Marie Mathiide, alias Mathilda MH(;kintosh.
That the property seized in this cause is the Lachine property, mentioned in
the said will, which according to the terms thereof, could only revert to Sophia
Mackintosh and unto her eldest son, in case both the said William and Duncan
Mackintosh should both die without lawful issue.
Then followed the ordinary conclusion.

By a SECOND fkremvtory exception, the plaintiff said that the will invoked
had never been registered in the registry oflBce for tlic county wherein the
land seized was situated, nor had the will been published and registered in the
registers of the late Court of. Queen's Bench or of the Superior Court at Mon-
treal, nor in any otfher court where it oiight to haVo been p^iUv read and
published and euregistercd to preserve the substitution crea((g|^^^Ki «aid will
in favour of the said Sophia Mackintosh and her eldest son, 4^rVrat it the said
Sophia Mackintosh and her eMest son, £ould, have cUimed Igy tight on the pro-
perty seized in this causd under and in virtue of the substitution created by the
said will, they cannot, from the want of such reading publication and enregis-
tration of the said will, invoke such right as ag^ihst the plaintiff, who is a bona
fide creditor of the said late Duncan Mackintosh and of his said estate.
The isBiies were completed by general answers and replications.
Per curiam. Under the construction of the different clauses of the will,
as the court interprets them, the tutor in his capacity has no interest in making
his present claim. The property in ^tiestion went to the child of the deceased
Duncan Mackintosh.

' The judgment was recorded in the following terms : ^ / '

^The Court, considering that the opposant not only is unfounded in law ' m '■
his pr^»nsions in favour of his pupil, but shews and establishes himself as well
by his own allegations as by the will of the late William Mackintosh of the 8th
September, 1841, partly in the opposition of the said Gnndlack, recited that
none or no other, but the eldest male heir of either William or Duncan Mackin-
tosh, sons of the said testator Could inherit his property at Lachine, and that

a^

*,

f3*7 ' •

• V •

,^ . »..■ .

SUPERIOR COURT, msj'

r^'^

88

Dunca Mackintosh died wUhouMlwff P'"P«'^^' "»'«•» »»>« ««id William and

Mackintosh ha. l4 a da„;orJ^^^^^^ ""« -d Duncan

who is Btill living, and Wore T "^ , .^'" "*^"«« ^''»» d«fe"<l«nt,

defendant as weff inherown „a e ' T5 T' '" '"' ^•'"-' '" '» '^^

her said husband, as in ber ^a ^rof Tutrt^^^^^^^^ "» *'- -*«'

her marriage with the m<i Duncan ISolh ? * ^" ''""»'"«'' ''»»« o^

Gundlack,forwhomandinwhlbe^l^^^^^^^^^ Tu.'" *^^ -^'^ William

oppo.it.„^n thi. cause, .-.i^ritp ^Jirt-,^^^^^^^^^ ^" ^^'^ ^^«

M^. ^. jyo/»w.,, for Opposant. , n •

G4«Ti«.. 2>or.o„ cfc i)oWon for Plaintiff. <5ppo«t.on dismissed.

•ng. shall be hel^and cnjojed by Z mZ^'' "^^/PP-'t^n-nces thereuuto belong
hereinafter described and iWcd thtt T to -" r '"^ -'"""^' '" ""'°"" ""^ wf;
William Mackintosh, and unto his awtl ml? .'/-^f'"' """^ "'"1"''*"' "«to my T^n
. law Of the Province Permits o hll^o?! laid ^^ ''"• '°"^'^''»' »» ^- - ^
arpents in breath, ty about forty arpel in ie„thK ^^f'"/^' «=<"><aining about thrc.
Lawrence, and in rear by the laniof one To ^ ' l*^""^ '" ^""'' ^y "»« R'>er Sato!

happen to die without la^rfSILie TtT '*^. "^ '" ''^'^' «« *>« -"^'^ Li^l
property, rest and residul^id" iLtr" T "' '""'"""' ""^ '"oL^'thTllSa^
anto her eldest son on t«kfa/tST,^« nf w I "*'*° ""*» Sophia lfaoktot«rt^^

Da«can *f..clrintnih aui a<HHherw^e«oSl*!^V°' *.''" "^'^"" ■"" of -g. .

Bonaoina

VI.

Bonaoina.

rTf

V'

,„.(,A(!yi.ii.in„,^_^^

^'^-^^^^ni^-Z^JZZ^^^

^^i.

84

li ■

'f/'

4.;**-

8Ui»ERI0^ COURT, 18«8.

MONnUSAlk «« D>0B1IBHE,1M«,
Coram Smitii, J.

No. in.

CA8UIBK

L;n>ch VB. McLmnan etal^^nd Bank of Upper Canada, Garnishee.

OARVIHIIKK— NOT BANK— DRAFT ON

OF BANK.,

BANK, NOT MONKT IN .HAND*

Hold,-Ut. Th«t theCMhior or othor OIHoor of • Bank rooeivin. ™o„-. . *v ...

• party, ^-t. .ndivldually. «.d doc, not conUltut^ th^^.uTh *« ^* ^""'"'^ "' '~'»''* -

«nd. Tlut . d«ft upon . B,„k. wbl. on p^nut.on thT i^k^^ ^"''- . .v

conveying the num. i. not money in tho lumcH tile ^n^^ ^^ "" »ni,trum.„t of

•ttMliment oil hi! account. ""'"'"'"*'"'«•'"«■ »>«>'o»«««W to payee and IWWe to

The Plaintiff pL.ced ^ saUicarrit, after judgment, in the hands of the Bank"
of Upper Canada to attach ..onios co.ning to the Defendants, representa iv«. of
late firm of W.Ison, Jack and Hughes. The Manager, in Montreal of the
Bank, appeared and made bis declaration to the effect that at the time o he

on or about the 21st November. l^aXrCS tS^^:^^:^'^
Goverfhnent of tl.Q Province, the sum of £570 14. od nv ZTI r^' .
b, the previously existing fir™ of Wilson, ^ll"!:;, S!;;^;'^ ^^^^^
no,s Canal ; ).hat th,s amount was at alK,ut t .e s,»d date paid L t It!! T
mont to Tho.nas 0. Ridouf, Es,., Cashier of the Bank ^^J"^^

i rtWB' Tk ; l7"7 "' T""?. °' "" ^'' «'•'"• -'^ walpoaited ; him
in the Bank erf Upper Canada, ,n his said q.mlitics of Ca«l.ier/of the Bank IZ
- attorney of % firm ; .hat long before such deposit the fin|L^en ""^
ously d.ssolve«tby the death of Wilson, one of its mem.,er,/and ,t« dTJuSi ~

which the Bank was ,n^aw bound to be awnro ; that if thAank ha,l ^ owed
thesaid-sum to go out of its Iwrnds it could only have d.L .n Iw

Plamtiff in particular, andVas accountable for the a.noit

The Bank, 7'i^«-«„-«e, answered that neither a, the Lc of the service of the
wn nor afterwards had it hel.l any monies belongin/v due to De . dants
that the sum mentioned in the Plaintiff's contefta/on, never came il the
possession or power of the Bank, and never was denXsited there to the credU
of the Defendants^ and that no sum whatever the Xperty of Defendants C
smce the service of the writ been paid^out of the Lnk; and formarii^
the imputation of connivance and frarfdl" / -^ ■

Issue ha^ifll been joined, evidence was taken /y a commmion roaalaire to
Toronto, where the Deputy Receiver General, and one of the Bank cWkrwe^
examined, and by the examination of Mr. Taylor, Mana^rer ' of T!
agency^, in Montreal, The evidence disclosed that a warrant for ijfSo 14s. 2d

wT 'T *i:^«*=t''" ^''"'"''''' "*''*' "» *'•« 21.t Nov.. 1866, in favor of
Wil«,n Jack* Hughes, and was paid to Mr. T. G. Riaout, the Cashier 7 tbe
Bank at Toronto, who gave his receipt therefor as attorney of said firm A d«dJ
for the sum upon th^ Montreal agency was then enclosed' by mail b'a lett

■mi^

^■^^

'VV

r of anothw *'

SUPER/OR COUht, 18«8.

«x moneh. b.6,,. ,fc, ;,„,™ "J ^^PJ"" "« ■»«•'»'• Tl>» took pl«. „,„.

he d no such funds, wllh ^ Ji !^ {' " '"' ♦'^^'•'ation that the Bank
P"d b, tl» Beci,., Gen.™! fc, Mr ThlT^e ., ""T"""'- *'"'«'' "•'•

.«<ion«, tt. <^.» .„5°,,^' f 2 » "»»^. O.. of A. a™ e^w.
Bank TheManverd«cl.™dth" ^' ■*°/""'"»«" ••• pnt into ft,

■ .ti.g._»g .h.. .b. S.tt.4™^ *'^,;"';» /;* ^''' f "-"f «»»'«'^.

««« that the firm of Wilson H-iT V^ r ? °*"^®y' "'"«« '' ^w notoH-

• ^"-.o-of th.par;;of wht^^^^^ ^^ ^^« <'-th of

wasXJurator,) anLhat the knk alZ^t «? *1^^^^
connivance withAhe members of 2 fi™ t?"'^ **^ ""'"'^ *''«'' h*»<J- by
was, whether m/. RidouMhrdwc^ onL «' ^'-^ '" '''''^ ^^^^ «^ *«™«d
behalf of Will. Hughe, IrJll^uedrfi;" TT'« ^^« "'"•*»^ o°
himself individually became so It "I *"'' *''*''" »**°™«y <>' o»>y

fould inanyIircuLtanrb^^6meCtoZr^^^^^^ "'^*'^' ' ^""^ '
at« powers ,ere allotted to it, and these dH 2 - , /*? ' " *» corporation
^ acting for individuals. Then m/sS J /"^^"^^''^^^^^P^ and

only when they were wfhL 1 '^:^ ^^^^^ 1"*^ ^^^^^
wh,c> were in the regular course 7Z h ,^ *"** "'"^^ *^ «"»»*««

Cashier for money depirtecL wTk'I T"^ **^ * ®*"^ ^ia receipt as

.. tl'-ordCashierffoCeyri^^^^^^^^^

individual receipt and Z' IZ^^^I 'ZZ^^'^Z t,T'^' ''^ •"'
descriptive.^ IHis Honor here referred! A n i. T ^ ^^"^ '^ '■«««'''«i *»
296 4 300.) Being therZtn'entof'^l*^^

no notice of dissolution. Mr Ridout ^.1. •'" '"<»"«"««». «nd having

-itted the amount to the p^li^tho"^^ ''''"''" "' '"'^ mandate tVansV

Montreal merely the inst,j:ero;;on:::ingr^^^^^^ ^^ ^^-^ -

and justly affirm th,t itS held S^^", • ""^ ^''*® '^"'^ '««a»y
Jack or any of them. ^^^ no funds belonging to Wilson, Hugh^ A

'• upo:;?::,t:^rnt^«^^^^^^^ ^^'/-^^ by their^u..

« and fyled in this c. J ^2 r^,.^^^^^ '' "•« <*««J*™«on made
« Plaintiff of the 24th De^i^W • ,**^*-^''*«*' ""^ upon the moMon of tlie

Lynoh
vs.

McLeniiM.

-A

\

inUuB

conte8tation.of th»d^,efatf,ti„„ of tl><^ gW»i«i,fe v

r^'^'^-'^^^^i^:^

M

SUPERIOR COURT, 1868.

~M»~

lomeh
MoLmiiMi.

" aaitU-ah^t in thii cauie, tho^' wu depouted In the office of the Bank of
" Upp^.Ci<iad8 to the oredll/ of the Miid Defondante, or of the uid firm 'of
" WiU<^,;ack d( Hughe^ th4 said sum of £879 Hb. 2d. currency, or any
"other sum of m^ney whaj/over; and further, considering that it hath been
♦^fully esUbiiHhed by the aiid Plaintiff in his said oontesUtion, that the said
« money was paid over to Thomas G. Ridout, Esquire, in his capacity' of attor-
.• ney of the said firm of tVilson, Jack <b Hughes, and by Wm transmitted by
- draft through the Bany of Upper Canada at Toronto, to the branch Bank at
♦' the City of Montreal, ihade in favor of the said flr% of Wilson, Jack <b
•* Hughes and by the said Bank at Montreal, paidj
•♦ before the issuing of iho writ of laitie-amt in

in due course of business long
^lis cause; and further, con-

•• sidering that it is nU establiHlied by evidence ifiat such payment of money
" was made in any w^y in fraud of the said Plaintiff nor of any other interest*
•iKl in the said moh^y, and that such payment was made in good faith, the
" CJourt doth dismi^ the said contestation with costs."
Daulre <t Daoujt for Plaintiff ContesUtion di.mis«Hl. .

Bote <t Monk for Tiers-Saisie.
(W.F.O.)

OIROUIT COURT. !*

MONTBEAIi, IS HABOH, 18S5.

Coram Brunbau, J.

No. 288.

RtAxm vs. Hooker et al.
H«U>.-TI»t th^ <nrner of .trunk, which hai been loet by the neglljjenoo of • oommon owrier. may

The plaintiff brought his action to recover the sun^ of £16 ISs. the value of
A trunk, efitnisted to the defendants at Montreal, by the plaintiff, for conveyance
to Hamilton, but which was never delivered by them to the plaintiff. The
decIaraUbn in the action, which was then an, appealable one, set nn^dolivery
to and l(he subsequent loss of the trunk by the defendants, and afSlpecifyin^
the coi^tente of the trunk, and the value of the articles thereiq^.^ntained, toado
tender oft e plaintiff's oath in proof thereof. . , ^ . '.

T^e defendants by their plea>»} admitted the receipt of the trunk by them
andAhe agreement to carry the trunk from MontreaF to Hamilton, but alleged,'
that Uiey had in fact carried the.trunk to Hamilton and there delivered it to'
onk Frown, a wharfinger in Hamilton, whereof the plaintiff had notice.
/Proof being gone into, and the receipt of the trunk by the defendants satis-
dctorily shewn, but no delivery proved either to the plaintiff or to any one on
bis behalf; though a trunk entered on the manifest of the steamer as marked
/" Jas. Robson," (the plaintiff's name being John,) was proved to have been deli-
vered to the wharfinger, and the judge haying admitted the plaintiffto prove the
contents of the trunk and the value thereof, by his own oath, after hearing op
the merits, iud^ent for the amount claimed was given in fevor of the plaintiff.

JlformcfeZamfte, for plaintiff. , Judgment for plaintiff.

i2o«e <£ i/ortit, for defendants.

/

KAJB..I

f

., ■

/

^ .

..

ki

./■'

-V

V**'*-

• ■;,, '''.

>.

• '

/

.

•.-

.J--^"-:r

,:— ^"- ' T,"

/

'

t 1

1I«*'

^', '' ■ •■'•■,l''<"

SUPERIOR COURT, 1857.

8t

uoinnMUj, itn iroviMBBB^ um.
Coram Smith, J. ; Mowoitw, J. | Bado«t, J.

Vo. im.

' H^ ,- "^'""O— H-O-IPT .,0«D WITH 0»O..LrOB. W,TW«„..

^.ve been p.a o J,' ." ^31^:' fZ T. ''"'' f ^ ""-^ ^ *^

Jo^fXa^t^Tov'r'rT"^^ ^7apKofp.y„,entoftbe

' A A • ^'' "«''*'0'>e<J above to Brunei. '

vo, nuiou was Illegal that it tent ed to Wove bv a wi«n«a« AftL .• *•

and in ^ioi2:jz::rxz:^; 't''- ^^' i-gui, i„4«,

court to Lave the^lr^^eS ' 7 ^'"""^" "''''"''"' "^^'^ ^^

con!L'e™^n"„7;L^e;t ''^' *h« ^-ctaunder .

law. ThiB would appelf 0 C^^I^UT'^"''^ of witnesses under our
the old promi JyTte Ael 34 Gen JSfrT '^' ^'«^''''*"'*' ^" '«^«™»«« ^
recogni crossbs'a. vl „\hl c^%T'' '' ?"' '" *'* "^^"^ "-»'-
reasonable to say, that n llolf ''^^'T'^'y "«^«; and it was therefore

the question in dben^r^r Tr^^ B"t

«>. ing the^w^^cLTr r^^hrnfc " ^*~«^ '

^J>'«;ver<*i>cw.Wft^fo,^,^^^^^ ^; .. Motion granted.'

■». ^/Mar/, for defendant.
C.W.T.)

^^■.

,"t.^a.j;itfjiaf' -'t ,twi- *.>j ,

"?■»

i

SOPBllIOR COURT, 18as,

::/■'■■:

^ * MONTRIAU I7TH IIPTIIIBIB. UK

. Comm 0. MoNDlLiT, J.

Tht Mm« eauH, ■ .^ *

RIOBIPT mONID ir MARK — IVIDRWOI.

Ilald th»t tlie |Mdrm«nt of a lum of mon<«r <wv be pi«v«d tgr Iha •MMtina witiMM to • rvMipt dipind
with » niMk mMi* hjr Iha party rtaaivlnc Iha aonagr*

The faotR of tliia c«io a|>p<)ar on pnj(o 87.

Tbo deposition of the witnouTboinM S. Judah was subaequontly taken in the
A following way ;

QiMitton. — Veuille* rogardor I'oxhibit du d6fondeur, num6ro un, et ditea ■! la
iignaturo au bas d*ic«lui, " T. 8. Judak," eat on n'eiit pas votre signature.

Ripontt. — C'est la signalurj du t6moin ; elte y est appos*© oomine t^moin ;
1r aignature " F. T. Judah," appoade au baa du dit exhibit comme timoin est la
▼raie signature de Fr^dirick T. Judah alors TAtudiant du t6moin, ot maintenant
r6aidant 4 Toronto. " t ^

m

Queition. — Le nointD6 Raphael Brunei, menlionn6 au dit exhibit, apposa-t-il
alors en votro prftsenoo sa marque d'uns oroix au bas du dit exhibit

Jtiponie. — Au moillour de la connaissanc^ du t6moin et croyanoo, il a fait sa
^ marque d'uno oroix en sa presence.

Quettion. — ^Vous rappollez-vous que c'est dans votre projpro 6tude quo le
timoin Isidore Bousquet avec le dit Raphael Brunet, se rendirent le premier
pour payer I'argent mentionn6 au ro;u et I'autre pour reoevoir I'argent

Jiipoaae.—l\ lui est impossible do s'un rappeler. Tout co qu'il sait, c'est que
le dit Raphael Brunet a fait sa marque d'une croix comme montiennd ci-baut, ct
le t6moin est bien certain qu'il n'aurait pas signd son nom oomme t^moin si le
dit Raphael Brunot n'eftt pas fait au pr6alable sa marque d'uno oroix.

TranaqueatUmni. ,

Ne connaissait pas Raphael Brunot avant, el no I'a pas connu depuis. Ce '
qu'il sait c'est qu'un individu qui a dit se nominer Raphael Brunot a fait sa
marque d'une croix en sa pr^Ronce.

No. other witness was examined by the defendant, but the plaintiffs gave
a wfraen consent that the above deposition should stand as well for that of Fro-
derfck TJ Judah,..^nd specially as two.

After a hearing on the merits, the Court gave Judgment in favour of the de-
fendant. ,

The judgment was recorded in the following terms; —

La Cour, •*♦**•••••••••♦»•♦

Con8id6rant que le d6fendeur est bien fond6 dans sa pretention de payeraont au
nomm6 Raphael Brunet, dont il est question en la declaration dcs demandeurs,
de la somme de vingt bnit livres douzo ohelins et six dcniers, CQurs actuol recla-
mie par la pr6sento action, lequel payemont le d^fendenr a bien et 16galement
^ -^Tpfouv&par lereQusous croix en presence des t6moins, du cinq aotkt mil huit
cent quarante cinq etant I'exbibit nnm^ro an da dit d^fendeur en cette cause le
dit tre^a dumcnt, Ugalement et snffisamment pronv6, consid^ranr qu'il rdsulte
die ce qui prSo^de que los deinandeurs n'pnt auoun dftit d'action contra le d6-

SUPERIOR COURT, 18fi|.,

im:^

Zoroiiyn- anti /Vmi»»i7/«, for PUintillk \ Action •dlimliMd.

iT. Stmift, for Deftndwit.
(»,W.T.)

!!.• receipt pro.lffjr,, ^ ^r. l)el,le„ry wl i,r,ha fol.owi.« fm,. :-
uxor lequ.| , r,conau et oonfefiA .rolr «.,/ \1^ ' "'P'' ^'"'•'' P*** •»

enfant mlneur e„ do„„e q„itt,„ce .u dU 8tau,l m *-*>"*"",«•• T»»«'" ^ "oo •« dit
A Montr*.!. Bt lo dIt LuCx^nn^TZt T J ^'»" «"» '" Jo"' •» « .u.dlta
.. »«que d'un. crol, en p'rt „c d, „ouI "^ * " ^'°" '"^ "' ^« '^"" «» • '•«»

TUOMAB a JUDAH.

F. T. JUDAH,

H. IlIOOBI B0US4)CBT.

\

Timoini.

RAPHAEL X BRtJNBT.
marqut.

[

MONTREAL, 30tu APRIL, 1858.

Coram Smtn, J, a.. .

No. aia.
Whitney, vb. Clarke.
«»[.. OJ-^RK-'NCOMPMENT TO CONTEADIOt HIS OWN B.01IPT

lod«eU by the «coipt. jfil' "'"^ '^*" ''"' """"^ •°''"™'

This action was instilntecBRhe rocovei»fr of the sum of £sa P„„ : ' • ..
.nteroM thereon fro™ the lO.h day of Novlbcr Zl foBf^f^ f jS

By hiB second Plea, the Defendant pleaded twopaym^ts to the PUJhii* •
a^ J^ntreal on the third day of Sept W 1866, ^the «^^^^^^^^^^
to be apphed ,n payment of the said Note, and of the other sum of £i 1 2^"^

Currency on the nth of November isae. at Montmr to be^ppM^^^^^^

•nd discharge of the said note, and that the Plaintiff then acSS ^t^ '

of i!ll2 17B,.id. in full satisfaction 8nd di,ch„rg^rh^.l°^i'' *'?■"'' '^

Nt

OeaiMry

^TPitmriBBoiyiiote.

\

^ 'p

.^■-

10

BUPIUIOfi OOUKT, 1808.

WkUlMjr

r^

Thfl Plalntif in hia anawen to lh« plaM of Ui«'D«r«B<lMt danUd hia proton-
•iona and alleged thf t tho t)flr«nd«nt had in fact pnlj paid ftn account of the
JAid ^foto, tho aum of XI 12 17a. Id. Curroncy, namoly, to the I'laintiff in paraon
«««, on tha third of 8<^pt«mb«r 18fld, for wlj^ioh ho grantod tho roodpt produood
•n<l markwl • aa Dofondant'a exhibit number ono,) and aftorwarda (ho othar aum
of Xa7 17a Id. Currency on tlio 17th day of November 18flfl,paid1>y the Defen-
dant to PlaintifTa clerk fnd book-keot)or, X. A. Duf^ne.

TTjo Plaintiff alleged that at the tino of thia laat payment the Dofenditht frau-
dulently induced Dufi-oano to ifive him a receipt hr £112 17a, Id.' Including
thoiejn the said flnit paymont oC£66, and the said laat payment of JBft7 17a. Id. on
Iho pretonco that ho had netror received a rooeijH for tho flrat payment.

Atfd that in fact the laid receipt waa obUinod by frauds and grantoil by the
Plaintiff Volerk in error and by miitaiko, .and ahould only have boon a receipt
for tho aum then actually paid, to wit; X57 17a. Id. Currency.

Tlio whole matter at isauo, turned upon the validity of the laat rooeipt which
^«aa produced by the. Defendant • .

The receipt! were tb the following terma, via,

Pirtt:-r \ • , .

" Received Montreal, 3rd Sept. 18S6, from William Clark, fifty.flve poUnda Oarrenev
on aoooant note." > •" . . „-' '»

And second :-^* '■'''

"«eceiTed from Mr. W. 0. Clark the lum afoae hundred and twelve poondi 11a .M
Curfencjr, M^ on account of Note due 10th initiknt, Montreal ITth November 1866." "

" N. 8. WIIITNEV," '"
£112 17.. Id. . "PerL,A.DUF^SNB."

At Enqu6to, the,PhiinUff proved by Luc. A. Dufresne, one of hia'cierka and
book-tocper, that l^ Dufresnohad signed tho i^ocoipt, Defendant's exhibit^No.2
on tho day it bore date. That on the morning of that day the Defendant paii
him on Account of tho saixT note £67 17«. Id. for which ho gave a receipt. That
in tho afternoon of tho tame day, tho defendant returned and asked tho witness,
as he had made a previous payment on account, for which ho reprosontod that ho
had got Jio receipt, to give him a full receipt for tho said payment of £67 17s. Id.
and tho former one of £66, and thftt witness did ao on defendant's returning^ tho
receipt given in tho morning, whiteh was destroyed.

Ho evidence of this witness was objected to, on tho ground of interest, but
the objection waa over-mledby tho pr«eiding judge Mr. Justice Smith.

Tho plaintiff aho produced an extrMt from hU books, shewing jiccording to
these, that ho had r^eived but two payments of >C66 and £67 178. Id, and he
proved the correctness of the extract by. another of hia cloria, Edmond
Graville. The books shewed a balance oi £60 as due by the defendant
The signature to the first receipt was proved by this witness, to be in the hand-
writing of the phffntiff himself; and of the seooDd in that of the said L. A. Du-'
freene. The defendant admitted to Oravelle " thai-he kept no cash book," and

A.<«.'l

•
»

,»"-'-,» "(f

^ »,. ^

4-

ft

■■\

\-

7 .' flUPPUOR COURT, 1808.

Son" of lh«« mli^i bo monlionod, • • '

m.o.ntdu^ Th. ,,„u ,■ for £,,j7, ' J T«.r" ""'•"'♦'•

^iy'!'^^ "°"'" """■ ""'"«' *• "»'■»■«•' <» b« "on ««,.„..
t.o ,IUK«», oi.,k. |„ bfa .„„Tr V. f n 7'~''<f'''' fteo^oo-p-odaori

" -mT;. . «o.; E^bX «o"i: ■ rcJ:-""'^-.'^' "• "'•'"'"•

tbi. u>o>iit 01. Ibal d,T Tb. .1;™,', . ! „ '"r '"?' °°' '" ""' '«•'"

..-...•nrt.1o,:i4~S"^t" r,^:/?^;. ,?''^"^.'

of hia Note, PWnUff's Exhibit Wn i i^ • f 7 "•• *^» <"» •cco«">t

Mid note, the DeC.^ti^t ^iulf h7h"J[ ' """^"^ '' ^'' ^"« »° «»«>

in the afternoon, when he ae:iw^^^^^ "

..id th.#ilehad no more mouert^lTLjltf"'^T\'^'^'^

■i-vfi^

',\

^

#!'

.*^.

-^ : ',

•2

4-t.

SUPERIOR COURT, 1868.

1iniitn«y

■n.
Ohrktb

previous payment of £65, on account of said note, and very Hkely, he thought,

he had no receipt of such previous payment, and therefore, for witneM to give him

a full receipt for the two payments of £55 and U1 1 7s. Id. Witness accordingly

♦ did so. ^Defendant returning the receipt gfven in the morning. The witness

r ' had not at that time «ror seen Defendant's Exhibit No. 1. The two receipts

: would be an over pa/taent of the note. 'When monies are received on account

., '* "o™*'™*" *»«PP«n^ tl'at receipts are ndt given, the custorao

clerks. i *

. . It was in the morning that the Defendant obtained the first receipt for £5l

178. Id. There was no other person concerned in this transaction but myself.

He told mo he had more money with him at the time, but required it for the

. pu'pOl^ofpliymonts on purchases elsewjiere. Ho retttmed in the afternoon aiyi

* obtained the receipt Exhibit No. 2. Witness destroying the receipt given in

_^ the morQing. •■

E. Gravel le was also examme^: —

" Isa clerk in the employ of Plaintiflf, and has been so for sevtfral years.
, ^ . Having examined Exhibit No. 1, swears that it is the PlaintiflF 's Signature, thereto
attached, and that it has reference to the note declared upon in the ^eclaraffon-
Having examined Exhibit No. 2, declares the Signature to be L. A. DufresneV
- V on behalf of the Plaintiff, a Book-keeper .tlien, and still in employ of Plaintifl"*

He was authorized to sign receipts on behalf of Plaintiff. This also refers to the
fioto declared upon in Plaintiff 's declaration. Witness proves authenticity of
Exhibits Nos. 3 (k 4. Letter authorized by Plaintiff. All the above Exhibits
being filed by Defendant." ' .

^^ross-Examination and Re-Examination unimportant beyond the fact of esta-
blishing, "That in couras of Plaintiff's business, \^hen a customer makefa pay-
ment on account, he does not always get a Receipt Sometimes the monies are
received by letter through the Post Thcyr soma^imes get receipts subsequently,
fc This often happens. The Plabtiffiloes not always acknowledge the receipt of

Money Letters fVom bis customers when transmitted by Post. Plaintiff receives
a great many money letters through this channel, and frequently omit« acknow-
ledging the receipt of thbra. In dull seasons the mpst part of the letters are
answered, and in busy seasons not so many. ^' . ■

^ The Defendant had a running account with the Plaintiff apart from this note,

before the maturity thereof. ? -

. « Thesp two witnesses were produced by the Plaintiff, and it is upton stfbh testi-

. ™ony that the Plaintiff asked this Court to sot aside a written document. The
^ only one of these two cognisant of the transaction w'as the Clerk signing the
'' teceipt, and hfe parole evidence, without any corroboration, was to set aside his

. ^' ''"^"g- Th« Defendant trusted that Ae evidence would b<> found insuflicient

'■jllfc' by this Court;

< * 1st— Be<^use the Clerk atten»pting to set aside a receipt by his oath, is, if
^^ * ; under tb«, circumstances. not absolutely incompetent, a suspicious witness, not
" , iJKC^.OTfltiaj?d.t6 cr^^^

' ' \2nd:V-Th|* the interests of society require that a receipt should be considered
saffi^cient unlws set' aside by undonbtedand overwhelming evidence, in the ab-

1

. send^ of wbidbtl^ presumption of Law is complete in its ^vor.

r;» * ^'

-'■¥SV

SUPERIOR COURT. 1688. / j,

Court Is .Lnoral^U • ' *" ^^'"^'^ "^ *•»« «"« «« »» »»•« .pp,i

He 18 swearing to his own dischai^e. F^niin. |

The judgment wa« recorded in the following terms • • " \

rated thereon, considering'that the^id lTn2ffT»^^^^^^^^^ ""^ ^"''"^ ''''"H

. and sufficient evidence tt mater ara,leS„?ofhH ,*" «'^"»'^ ^^^ '^g*'

. considering that the said dofendln hJ h Mi ''"' *^f '"»'"«". -"d further

. of his 8aid%xceptiop fyledtamerv that h / ^T' '^' ""^""' '"«8«''0"«

action he had fuHy paidVe^Sof 1 pt''- " 'T''^''' '' **"« ?'«»"*

'. action is brought. And furZ "li ^'^"^'^ory N<,te, on which the said

^ barred from hfving a^d ml ruininS''^*''"' '^' •"'' '*'^"^-» ««»"*>» «>e
by reason of any Sg 17^:^^7:1 '"'^° '? *^« ««''^ "-P^- .
And ..Ijudging on the^motiof mll^t^tL^^^^^^^ ""**'"^-

Luc. A. Dufresne, a witness produced b^^^^^^ ^^ ^'^'^T^ ''

supporting the allegations of thA«»w ^ . P'a>nt»ff. for the purpose of

the said motion, afd S adlrthe ^T T"' '''^ ''''"'* '^^'^ "•^«»
Dufresne. to be illegal and inS^^^ rddo^h "":.''' "'' """^^^ ^"«- ^-
Joth maintain the LebtionTrf % , r . J''**''"'"^ AndtheCourt

action with ^osts, drahs to Mr Her;^ tfT^ ""' '''''' ^'^i^ '»»« -<i
. ''*^'-^^°'y ***"««. the attorney for the defendant."

^rmnceanaJWom»,fo^ Plaintiff Action dismissed. " ''

if. iSifMart, ftt Defendant. . • ,

1851. Taylor 3rrf.Edn. London DDfi07»nf ."„T'^ «^- IP-^^ London 8th Bdn.

Reports : Ori.es v/KerSB'/IdsVL "''''' ^^^^^^
Parrar,v. Hutchison, 9 Ad 4 El 64^ '°°' ^^ '^°"'''' '^ «* ^'«J- 606. «H.

18«. Starkio. 1, m. 133, and ^.es ard fidt" L ".'' "V' ^'""- ^^ '''^ «<">•
"3, 5416, p. 617. ^"^ ^^\ ^°"'^»°- Greenleaf, Er. 1, §411, p.

Beports: Kdmonds r. Lowe, 8 B. A 0 407 a H„„».- , r u,
* - :v ; • ^•*"^- 8 H"at«' T. Leashley, lo B. A 0. 864.

MONTRBAL, 18TH 8BWBMBBa,.1868.

Coram Badout, J.
This was a motion to reject An exception dfaTZ^^r^ . ,

Whltn
Olwke.

0

04

SUPERIOR corner, laas.

wf" Hemming, for defendant, a(>gued that though in one sense a taisU arrit after"

Bniwiifla. judgment might be considered as an execution, inasmuch as it was a proceeding
in execution of a judgment^ yet that it did not at all follow that it was identical
with a aaiiU execution, or that it shoUld^be ^fovemed By the same rulos of pro-
cedure. That in the same sense &g action instituted for the purpose of declar-
ing a judgment executory might be considered as an execution, but no one
c<^ld doubt its being also aif action. That the primary object sought by the
party issuing « aaitie-arrit win to obtain a transport forcie of the debt owing
by tho tierasaisi to tho ptsi, and the defendant waa summoned by the writ
" to appear to hear the attachment declared good and valid, and further to
answer as the said writ requires," as an intervening party, for the purpose of
seeing that such transport was effected in due course of law. That it had been
hold in the Court of Appeals, in the case of Macfarlane & Whiteford, that a
saiaie arret was an « aoto d'assignation par lequol lo aaiaisaant formule une dc-
^ " mandc centre les personnes .ainsi citfies"; or, in. other words, that the pro-

' coeding wfts in fact an action. That the defendant or aaiai had the right to

intervene, at every step of the proceedings, in order to see that the same were
regular and conformable to law ; and this not only as tq raatteVs between him-
self and the aaisissant, but also as between the 8aisissant\nd tho tiersraaisi. That

it was manifestly impossibfc; for the defendant to exercise these rights if he were
restricted to an opposition Sjiu tCannuller, the only pleading thit a defendant
is allowed to oppose to a same execution. Moreover, what object could there
be in forcing a party, who was already before tho Court, to take upon himself
the character of opposant. If we looked a^t the theory of all oppositions, we
should find that they were a means provided by law, whereby a party who was
not before the Court could, under certain circumstances, bring himself before
t'le Court and state how he was aggrieved. But no single instance can be found
in the books, of a party, who finds himself already before the Court in any other
character being obliged to tak«, upon himself the character of opposant. Then,
again, what rules are to govern as to the delays when such opposition should be

fy'ed. In the case of a Mme-earecM/ion, an opposition d^nefannttWer must be fyled
\ previou8*to tho sale and return ; hut, in the case of a aaiaie-arrit, that would be

\ impossible ; for it is not untirthe day after the return-day, when tho tiera-aaiaia
have declared, that the defendant can be sure that there is any seizure at all.
Or tho very defect that the defendant may wish remedied, as in the present ease
might be th^there was no legal return at all. Or contestations might arise,
between thtimiaissant and the tiera-aaisi after the return, in which the aaist
had an interest to contest; and if it be contended that it might be fyled any
time before the sale, this also would be impossible, as there was no means
provided whereby the defendant should be notified of the sale of the» goods
seized on the tiera-saiai after judgment obtained against him; and moreover,
in the great majority of cases, there is no sale at all. Under these circum-
stances, it was manifest that the defendant must be allowed to plead, as^aan
J^ ordinary action: That even though it should be' held that an opposition was
the only way of contesting a aaiaie-arrit, still, inasmuch as the moyena set forth
in the exception were exactly the same as might be set up by ail^pposition
^«Atwtwtfferf the Court would TTovtirewforai-Tgjeetthe^^

.Ifffff,-

SUPERIOR COURT, 186&..

":"^"t ' fo\^^^tih^ allowed two ple«,in two case, decided last Son-
nomel "^ . ^f ^'''°"«' ^'"^ cbaracterized them as monntrous n,I
IZZLT^- I'^T"^'^"' '^'^ '"''' ^ '-bstance, go6d answers.
Supposing however, that these r^on. should be held insufficient, the plaintiffs
JriTe elT' ^^« rP^-ourse in endeavouring to have the e^/'- dl
/arm* rejected on motion: they should have demurred to the same for the fa^
of such a lengthened argument being noc««aiy, would tendTpr^vo ihat
was really a question of law, and not of mere practii. That in Ter that .
pleadmg might be rejected on motion, it was noce««,y that thershouldbj
such aa irregularity in the fyling oX the same «. should 1 patent on thefecl
of .^ and such as the Court would be bound to noUce; but, in the Ze of
Dechantal vs. Dechantal, there would be found an identi^Uy '.i^iUrpreeJ.

f" CDaiAii.-Thi8 IS the case of a saUie^n^it after judgment, which the
defendant meets by an exceptum d la forme, averring that the writ of ^W
«rr^< was not returned into Court until the day following the retur^ day T^
case « before tbe'Court on the plaintiff's motion to rejel the exldon' nl

SliV. '"mJ-""^"'^'' after judgment'can be sTt^^l^y^^
€xceptum d la forme of this nature, as if it were a new action. By the law and
practice of our Cour(, the «».-,fe^„.^, after judgment is regird^^aran e^ru
tjon ; but the defendant b^as no valid interest in raising sucKllJ ection 1
. Ae return of the writ into Court, and after the declaration of the ga n ree^
been made and fyled of record. More6ver, I have consulted my brS Jud^

stated.^' The exception must be dismissed. » ^ nave

^a*«r, for plaintiff;^ ' Motion granted, and Exception dismissed.

Dorman, Counsel,
^emmin^ <fe Zunn, for defendant.

tever et al T fl a. ♦!. _r j V ' P* ^^^ "ettoyer et al. vs. McGarvev and Mntl
SSraK'L^o": Jurist; V""" "' **PP°«'"« «•*• "' = » P'««a«. P- csf^d^a "p' m;

Hunter v.. Dorwih! ' ' ^- *"' ""^ *^'«' S*""* ^8- DeMontigny, and

(8.B^f.W.T..*B.j.H.)

L4u"«,Tsf(To7SVo'w^^^^^ *^/ of Pinsonneault vs. MaUIouiand

defendant pleaded thatli;TS^Ji''„r?he%'S/ri 3^f ^"*^«^""'^ **» ^•^«''' «»
was contended by nlaintlffa Ooi.n.«i ?h.?^l j virUabU ddnUur. At the argument, it
lag such a J^ntf^^j^^^T^^S"^^^^ defendant could have no interest fa, pfead-

Court . .'. considering thitSaUfiSfi lM6:-.«Th; .

dent, • . and that the^exoeption „? hto ^eSnSS' f« Tl.^t.^rj^''^^'^"'''''"

TOaiRSoEiSivwUh^bstrtot^^

Molion
BoRoucbs.

M defendant." (s! B.)

,

«■

v^

96

SUPERIOR COURT, 1888,

■ > ».

IfONTBBAL. ttra SBPTBHBBIE, U58.
Coram Smith, J.

• No. 514. " ' '

CARRIBR SHIPI^EB— GOODS IN TRANSITU.

Held,— That • oommon carrier who dAiivom .n/wj. * »i. . -

B»ou. wmw. <» <n.»^„ not t„ j,„^^, j^^^ ,^„^l^ ^ ^j^^ ^j^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^per

three caTir^*'*';*" T'" ^^"^ ""'" ''^ ^»" ^b. 7d. cy., being the value of
Oiree case^ of gobd. shipped by the plaintifis at Montreal, on board'the defendants'
veeael and wh.cb, by the bill of lading, the defendants undertook to deliver at
loronto to one Samuel Oasper.

fl TX ^*"!"f **" ""«««'' t'"'* »^"« tJ'e vessel was en route the plaintiffs noti- .
fied the defendants not to deliver the goods to the consignee, inasmuch as h^
' had stopped payment ; but that, notwithstanding such notice, the goods were
dehvered by the defendants to C«per at Toronto, and were in consequence
wholly lost to the plaintiffs. ^

♦l.rri.'^''^"'^!"*'/^*'!*^''* *''** "* """•''*°' "<>"'=« ^^^^^ fP^«n to them; ^
that the goods had been landed, according to custom, at a public wharf at
Toronto; that the plaintiffs had a brinch establishment at Toronto, and could
have and ought to have looked after the goods when so landed ; that, moreover,
they had taken and still held Casper's note for the sale to him of the goods in
question and had repeatedly dealt with him since their delivery in endeavour-
ing to obtaid security, and otherwise, in all respects as if he were the true
owner of the goods. ' •

The following was the judgment of the Court:— .'

•^Considering that the said plainUffs have fully established the material alle-
gations of their said declaration, and that the goods, the value of which are now
sought to be recovered from the said defendants, were shipped on board the
Kanger, belonging to the sai'd defendants, and were delivered by the said
defendants to the said Samuel Casper after the defendants had b«en duly noti-
fied to stop the said goods in transitu, and not ti) deliver the said goodsiand ^
that, by reason thereof, the said defendants are liable in law to account foTtBT
value thereof as set forth in the bill of particulars, being the price for which
said goods were sold by the said plaintiffs to the said Samuel Cwper.

•♦ And further, considering that the said defendants have failed altogether to
prove the allegations in their said pleas set forth,-doth condemn the said
defendanta, Henry Jon^ WiUiam John McDonell, and the said Dame Susan '
lobelia Jones, in ber said capacities, jointly and severally, to pay to the phuii-
titfsthe snm of £356 28. Yd., current money of the Province of Canada, with
interest thereon from the 11th day of September, 1864, date of service of pro-
ceas in this cause until actual payment and costa of suit,"

" ^ . TO- „ . . Judgment for plaintiflb.

4. a ITf -noterteon, for pUintifi. v - > ,

iww <& J/onitr, for defendants.

(&B.)

'■\-

1

rpp<

voft

6ffe<

the

A

shot

oftl

of tl

£50

as to

abso

M

obey

bedi

ordei

was I

order

-*ft-tli

\-~^,

-^, - ■'^♦pf ■' .-?<r"'

'm

SUPERIOR COURT, Iffig.

iif ON^AL, J8TB OOTOBBB. MSB.
Sbravi MoMDBLBT, (C), J.

Moiaon v$yBurrmght'and The Bank of Montreal, T. S.

and, If It be an execution, H must be tried bv oniMMklnn fl« ♦!.-* j ' ^

circumstance., the ^otioi must be rejected. ^^ So that, under any

Joel. C. Baker, for plaintiff.
Hemming d; Lunn, for defendant.

any
Motion rejected.

■^■i .

MONTBBAL. »TB OOTOBBB, 1858.
' ^0«»» MONDBUT, (C.) J.
_ N0.J8S.

the ca-««<,(!* on j^,„,„t ^ .«T^r.^St „li?w ^. »'»!5"'*« "»^*»« btaaelf fh.m

At the aigument, it was contended, on the part of the Sheriff th-f .1.. 1

£5 cu:^!:.^ tf; it "" ^'*:' -•'^™^^'^ wasclearly'pLed not t^ e,:^^'
*60currency. And it was argued, on the part of the plaintiffs, that the oroof

j2^th^evaluewaswhoUyinsuffic,enMndth;ttheru|es^^^^

oh«!T'";^^^^^~i^^' "***'"« *«»*'>• There can be no doubt that I must

tl^ T !rf ^' ^"'' "^ ^PP^" ™ ^''^ «-«' *'*hough my opinLn mTy

tl7llm'' ""T '" P"""'^ ''** the judgment'of this So^^S

b« , ^ut I shill give judgment on my own responsibility. The Oourt of Appeab

w«^»."TY"7 ''""'' ««'«"•« *^«Sh^tonikeprooni„Z^^
waenolhing about value in the rule. I «». of cou»e, bound to car^ out ft^

*n m« rule »i diawnt If the judgment of thTo^of App^^SJTto^

18

SUPERIOR COURT, 1888.

.,?

ev.dence adduced could bo applied to the /.U^S^rr^^rLtlo o
whatever proceeding they «ight have before them, ib^ or Jg^ i>e iU ame
,^ orch««yUr. Upon inveetigatio,, the Ooart here foundThe evidence Jto^^^^^^
the Shonff he aurt could not, of course, look at, or, at lea.t, judlciallv Uke

omittwi m the declaration. Such a doctrine, elementary, and univw^v known
DO to be overlooked by this Court, and it was not overlooked. ^ ThfeCoirt was
and adjudicate m favor of the pbintiflF, and grant him, not what he had 1^'

tin f^K 'r.^r . ' '""'*^ ^* "P«' *« '»•« Requiudvile, under ie Za
t,on of the 34th Article of the 86th Title of the Ordinance oi 16^ InC

that was to be the rule, or rather if there was. to be no rule whaterer Ln Jl
he sconce of the proceiure, and Pigeau and others, might be 2 1^.-1
the w,ll of judges instead of well understood ruks, be law. Of cou«o with
such a doctnne there would be an end to all seSy. and the Judgriight
with ,mpu^lty, disregard the fundamental golden rule^of the RomariTw •-

^n^deductumeumuaguam poU,t ezcedere. This Court could not and would
not disregard that maxHB/^nd much less the Ordinance of 1667 ; both of which!
in as far as the present case was concerned, were justice and common so^
The rule must, therefore, be dismissed with costs. .

\ r. jr.. ite»May, for plaintiffs. Rule dismissed.

-Be^Attrt*<fe ZJubAm, for the Sheriff , < '

(8.Bj\ ;■■ ■

XOKntBAI^ ttTH FBBBUABT, US0. . —^

Coram Smi^h, J.

No. S89.

Morgan v$. Forsyth ^t al.

LIAB^ 0» BBOIBTBRBD 0WNBB8 OF VBSSKlfl FOB 8DPPLHB.-

™aimwnigiiieN»ri)llt^Jill«btoaBdiiotthe»eBW6»down^ ™™

^^achon waUrought against the defendants as registered owners of th«^

4imts plyided that, i^nring^^ wholo of that period ih<»^»Ay^.. « . ^

f-r

SUPBRIOR COURT, 1889.

fit to the pUintir. knowledg 3^ ^' '^ " ^"" "« '"^ »>«»«-

on wcount and upon the oredh' Tn u /" '"™'"'"^ **> *»>« -t««™«

.ottloment. To £ Z ^e oUinUr' ™^' f ""' "°*" "^^ P'«'"''ff »<«k in
•applied at the rZlotih^^^ .T''""'^ '^^'^^^' *'>«* »«»<» ^^o^ wa.
of Humnh^yor^f ht credit 1?!°' *'? "T "' ""^ ''^«'<'"* "y knowledge
donanlg payment f«m1^e mit ^'^ -ft^^deHvery of the whole, and o^
w*. the oJner and wS p^v that ' ^ ''^ "'" '"^'^^"^ ^"^ ^nrnphr^^y
repre.entation.of nZh^^^^^^^^ ^^ »»•» information and J

hi. note, which wa.ZS.r«ir^ the actual owner, the plainUff accepted

•ware that at the tLToT^lltd d r fj '''*" ""^ P'^'^^'^ "^^^^

not Humphrey werltl owno^ .„Tf h H °i *' ^*^' ^« ^^^^"^''"'ta and
Humphrey wa. I JivLr LX Tr- ^"^T'' ''""^ »^-' ** ^« «»«
defendLtfweretheTX^^hXXrrh:^^^^^^ °" '-ning that the
done nothing . ,,,., .^rfeitli^!:: ^nlt: '•^'"^"'^"' '"^ "^"-

. the iatter i. prefe^rL^tdtTe t"w ^^ ' ^T' ^^ -^•»te^

title can take place without reinJr? -n^ !, / / ""^ *^*^'"'»' ^'■""f*' «>f
were, no doub^ thi 3 olnT kI' • '^'^'"'**"*" "* ^'^^ **""« '» q"«tion,

whichtheca.etlsr towS ^L*^'''"^ '"^"«^- «"* ^h« H^t on
dence. The t stronv; HnmnH ""^ '. f "° ^ ""^ *•"" " * ""*»«' «' «'i"

1856, (though :;;[:s:?X:i^^^^^^^^ •- ^-y-

it wa. «,ld Bub«.qLtly. with Itnint to 1"°' l'^ *^^ *° P''^ *•>« ?"«'«'
second salvandliie tLe steamer Tri^r/rl'^^^^^^^^^^^ \"? """^ '^^^'^ *•>«
wholly under hi. ianagement and ^tr7i ^ " '^^ ^"' ^'^^ P'^^* «nd
and officer. WHumTCyV and I !^ '/^' T"^ '^"» ^"™"»'«d- The crew
recei;ed it, W app^J^^nd pjJ bvT' \'°"'"^™9f^ '<>' the Wood and
•gent The arthoSd^^sll^jljilfZ^^^ ""? T *'""«^-' ^«
a^«^/«c^Habilityonthe';^t5r^^^^^^^

a^w^wd /ac^/liability on the nartT K ""^^ "^ ^"^ *'*'*' ^""^e^ «^»tin«

, "To«»y,"ob.erve.L'rdEltS^ w'^T"" 'T'^ » -» conclU,ivf
a chartered .hip, "that the Z^S!^ «»«''?«•"'««« having reference to
^'•party of all control 1 Z^,W Z Jl^^V'"^^ €

« another who h«. all theCTrLnl^ JT '"'«*?' ""^ *»«'"«'« ^--o' of *
" to the ve«el, by orde/ofThe l^L /'^ T" """'**' •*•*'«• ^"™''*«<i
"effect of the/egi.terIlt^^LTt:,trVn«^

Jability for .toM. ft,rni.hed a ve«en " i. a ;»««, T^^^^

" which, like aU other qn^tio^jLlS'^''''^^^^ contmctand credit,

;b7 a ju,7 upon oonaidera^ J^ ctt^L ni"!"""" ^ ^^'^^
Humphrey, verbally bv wwIT. T. ! ^**"*^ ^«'e wa. a wle to

time in q„e.tion had the J and^njjT^/^ *i?°««'"''^' *•«» d«ring the

:!pp!!i^t and orders and tJ::;t1ii^rr:g?^- ^-*^-*-

HofBM

CA

• Adtoon on contract., An.eric«. BdWon, ^p. eas and 629.

'%

I

si"

loo

SUPERIOR COURT, 186P.

The judgment wm recorded u follow* :— '

" The Court, Ac, Ac, coniidoring that the plaintiff hath failed to prove the

" allegations of his said declaration, and that the said dofondants over contracted

" with the said plaintiff, or in any way booamo liable in law to pay to the said

" plaintiff for the prioe and value of the wood sought to be recovered in this

" action, the Court doth dismiss thin action with costs."

Action dismissed. '
Po;iAam, for plaintiff.

Abbott <t Baker, for defendants.

MONTBBAL. Mtb rBBaUART, 1M9.
Coram Smith, J,

No. «M.

Qrenttr et vir, vs. The Monarch Fire and Life Auutanee Company.

POLIOT OriN8URA«0B — rORFEITURC.

■'■■''V,""-
Held,— lit. That under a oUum in a policy of iniurmco, that If there ippew fhuid in (he oUim made
to s loe«, or (klM sw<«ring or ammiation in support thereof, the clAimant iliall forffelt all benefit
under euoh policj^he (Jourt will rqjoot the cUlm, of the polioy-holdor. if tho Company eetablish
that the claim U ui^ust and firaudulent, and hur in exceM of the actual Iom to the knowledge of
the policy-holder.

Ind. That general ovidonoe m«y outweigh the ponitlve teitimony of witnenci, whoretho evidence of
theee witnesici ii not coniiatent, and where the preiumptlons are adduced againit itN trutli.

This was an action brought by tho plaintiffs tp recover the sum of £lifi6 *»'
lid., aUeged to bo due under a policy of insnranCjS made in favor of one of them,
Marie Sophronio Grenier, trading M h yiarchahde publique at St. UyacintBfi.
The Declaration sets up the policj;^ of In^w&ico : tiiat a fire occurred on her
premises on the 7th May, 1866, by" which her stock-in-trade to' the value of
£486 48. lid., and her household furniture to the value of £100, were destroyed
by fire. • . '

The defendants pleaded, in effect— First, That tho loss suffered by the plains
tiff was inconsiderable, and would have been less and probably nothing but fo
her own negligence ; that there was an express condition in the policy, endorsed
thereon and forming part thereof, to the effect and in the words following -J-
" All persons insured by this Company sustaining any loss or damage by nret
" are forthwith to give notice to the Company at their office in Adelaide p/ace,
" London, or its Agent, as soon as possible after (within fourteen days at farthest),
" are to deliver in as particular an account of their loss or damage as the nature
*• of the case will admit o^ and make proof of the saiye by their affidavit or
« affirmation, and produce such other evidence as the Directors of the C6inpany
" may reasonably require. In this account the property and articles /must be
" specified in detail, with the*quantitie8, qualities, and prices ; no Profit or
" advantage is to be included in such claim. And until such affidavit or affir-
** mation, account and evidence, are produced, the amount of such I6ss, or any
** part thereof, shall not be payable or recoverable; and if there appear fraud
" in the claim Wade to snch loss, or fidse swearing or affirmation in support
** thereof, the clftimaQt shall forfeit all benefit under sach policy." /That by the

iJl^Uf„

,vk- *. ":^

/

■ ■« I'-i^l' (■•'v "-T'^^

SUPERIOR COURT, 1889.

101

h.7 «? . u" T. """"* •"'* """'"» «*' »'•• ••'•' «»P'«« condition Z

belaid poHpy ; that plaintiff mu.t h.vo known, .nd did know .t the time thlt

Uu/ WM ^, .nd th.t her claim w.. wilfully exaggerated.^, vie^tolf^ud

thj defendant.; and th.t .he had, therefore, forfeited Ilh)lJ^„nder Tid

Th« caM went to e»id«ni», md was dhmlMod

S»m,, J, In gi.fng judgment, uid In effect r-Thl. I, „ „tioi,- „. . * |,,„

. .toek of .nob value ; that d.a had .nfferal no loea- ami .h.i !k. !J °
frattdnlent and worthle-.. The qneation. ilLI'thtel .^""'j:;;"

»itTaJ^j'''!'"'"'r"'""«' "* "•• ■«-• ."j^ruor^h:'

policy! and is her claim a fraudulent one ?

hnr^Jf *J« ^'^^"P^on of three.witne«K,s, who ar« Archarabault plaintiff's .on
her daughter and a law .tudent by name of UiUnoureux, alMhe e^denTe'
«^d«ced .. of a general chatactor. The defendants adduced evidence toehow
that there was not on plaintiff's premise, at the lime of the fire the amount of

S'e cVu|7h " ^t''' T ^""•-'^''y''-; infacUhatitwasimTssile
she could have had the .tock she had sworn to. That the fire took placi
between ten and eleven o'clock in the'evening. and was put out by a f^uS -

of water ma few mmates. That it was confined to a corner of the shopTnd "

atit wj. h^ly improbable that such a loss as is claimed could hav/Zli^f
there. Neighbours were examined who spoke to these facts. The city a^
.o« were also examined, who had shortly before valued the stocWor the
Woses of asse«.ment at £25. Then the., was evidence collated to h^'

thl^the lir '^'r ?: ."" '° ""^^ ^^'^^ «? the descnpL «'
thMime iJr rT .' *""' ^"^ ^'"^ *°'^ *'•*' P'"°»Jff ^'^ »«»«« on hand at

It CiS '-^"^ '' p"*'"'" •*«""p^'"» '*«'y »« »>« fo-<i 'n •

of tL .h • ^ "* * "*""'*'7 *°'"'' '•*** '^*«'«'«** that the quantity of some
'uc?a 1"'"" rt '"* ^'''"^ •" "^ «f -^•* '- «kely to b/foun^l
•uchashop. Mr. Thomas, of the firm of Bruyere Thomas A Co on!n/T

^kofan^^eca«ed«silkplu.h«thanhi.h;usewould'im^^^^^ '

^•'^r'.

IM

SUPERIOR COURT, 18A9.

-o^.^^«„, eojlu, parUcul., .„d po.iUv. •,id..«. „f Arch.uub.«.t. .nd tl.« otha, of pZ^

Arclmmbault .nd fMrnourou, .wear pcltiraly to U.. mdiing of the inventory
by thorn «„no d.y. bofora tha flro. Tha formar ..y. timl tho .Iraft of tl.o invan-
K. tory which ha pro.Iuoa^ writton in ponoii, wm n.iula ..„u« day* baforo tho fira
«n.l WM in h.. pook«l »ccidant«Ily «rt«r all the goods, book% aiid Invoica. h J
boot. d««lroyW by tho flra. Thair avidanco i. corroborat^ by tlul of Miu
Archnmljiiult, and it i. hard that crodenoa .bould not bo ^Ivan to If but it
must ba woighe<l ^with tha,.othor ovidanoe, and, If againat ail probability, i. it to
•tandl Lot, u* look a littla mora ol<yaly into the avidonoa of thaaa withomt.
No invcvc^a of any purcfiMoii aro prbduoad, nor it there oviilcnca of tho do.truc-
tiou of any ioroictl ; but, if doatroyod, they cerUinly might have been replaced.
Nothing of the kind waa done— no tingle invoice la produood, and not a book.
' Archanibault awaara Uiat he took down the good, in the inventory at the prices
at which tlioy were liought in Montreal ; but he forgot ^hia whon he awore that
he hinwolf had brought back from a visit to the United States ^6200 worth of
K y valuable silks. I« it likely 'that he could not find tho persons in Montreal ftom

I \ whom the goods were bought, if bought there I Nichols, a trader in Montreal,

Is the only one examined wlio had sold to plaintiff ;. and he says that thb goods
he sold wJfe not liko those in the sUtement sworn to,but were, on tho contrary
like the goods which arc in tho list of those which wore saved at the time of
the flro. Miss Archainbault swears that she bought XOO worth of goods at a
' particular place in Montreal ; but she gives no doUils, and produces no account.
I ho plaintiff's stock was, at the time of the flro, assessed on *#aluo of £26
Ihis she endeavours tp explain by ovidonoe that carpenters wore at work when
the assessors came to assess, and that the goods had in consoquonco been removed
np stairs; but this is- contradicted by tho evidence of the asHossors themselves.
In relation to Archambault's story that he had brought a large amount of valu-
^ able goods from tho States, there is the evidence of parties to show that when
he came back he was as poor as whon ho left ; that he was very vain, and would
have boon likely to have mhde a display of his goods if he had brought them
. back with him. The evidence might be dwelt upon at greater length, but
enough baa been said to shew that the claim is a |(ibrteated one, that there has
been a breach of tho conditions of the policy ; and the action must be d'i'smiiWKl,
The judgment is as follows :-" Considering that tho said plaintiffs have failed
to prove tho allegations of their said declaration, and'that she, the said Dame
^ Mario Sophronie Grcnier, auffered the loss for,tI»e recovery T)f wlncb the present
acUon IS brought; and further, considering that the said defendants have fuUy
established that the claim of the said plaintiffs, set pp in and by virtue of the
4r policy of insurance declared on in tho said declaration, is unjust and fraudulent,

and w far in excess of the,actual'loss by the said Dame Marie S. Grenier, incur-
red by the destruction of tjie property -insured under said policy ; and further
considenog that thewd claim was .so>ade with a full knowledge of the said
plaint.fi; Dame Marie S.Grenier that , the said claim was unjust and fraudulent,
and that it waa made for the pwpos^ of defrauding the said Company, the

8UPKKI0R COURT, I860.

■— ^— -'— - m^fW

tWf under Ih. Lu^ . * """"' ''"' '"''•I'"' •" '>'•'"• »'«t- >I™«X*».^

A d a. iMjIammt, for pLIntlffi. ^**'*"' '"•»'*^-

Cro#« «t Bancroft, for defendanU.
(U. B.) ,

MONTRBAL. Sinii APttll,, irm.

Coram IUoolkv, J[.

No. 101.

Fowltr vi. Stirling, tt al.

., ,« _..""*'' *" ''*°""»~<'0''"«»om wuM 'mot lubl. roR rwroiiT

pi.i»iiir Jgi„ r;^,. 1",;,!" ^ f"'""'"." "f "•• f™ii!'" of .iii.h- ih. ^

•ignors aa the briffiiml coiitrimtrtr. Th i • ! * * ™''* ***® <'<"'-

Bill of Ladling .ifer hH „ame^ thl '™" "" ""T^" '^ ^'"•"^ ""^«^ *
Montreal, conLnee fo whl^n .. '^"^ **'• Moikleham^of

Invoices Ira^.S^ro^Z Sa^ tI"" T ^'"«^'! " ^^"^"« '» '
evidence, and that ia The her '7/. °^ ' '*"'"''^" " °"« P«'«'y of
originaUontractorl '''"'""^ "* """•"«-"• -^ - Bucb.

The'Bill of Ladingappears to have been made out by Mr. Maxw«ll ♦».»

liability in law is bevL r r n "1^ ^ '"""«'' established, and as soch, their

him for this iron, wS it a;L^d n .Tf '^"*' *" *"«^« f'«'«''t fo'
manufactory for M^^b d ffv " m *" .f °n "^ """" *''« ^«'«''*^">*'*
ment, had 7ec„red ?.Sght br^e « DUnT"' " f"' -T""* ^" *•*» '"'«^

• »

SUPBRIOR COURT, lltl.

'/-

Jttfy of th« irm ttul {M It hii«l not htmn ihlpiMd in punuano* of tlilt
ll¥. n«» t<y Orr't »f(m&f, A^ ihofwi of Orr Mng Hl.i,.. H,„ki„ f«, Ui#
CllfemU at t})« timo (he »ron *»», .hippod in May un.l«r lli. Ui|| of I^li„g ■^^,
qimllon, had no ofeot up«« th« contrfttl nor th« llnbllily of thh dufm^ui,. te<
Orr h-1 not t^i m Dnrling". «g„„i „or m.d. th« rfiipmoni ofth.rlRj, own
or DiirUng'.n.ni«, wd th« <i«f«mUnl'i h«.| bj Ihfilr own ut •Uceml tu b«thttn.
Wifii Ui. coniignor.. tk. ft.. *. Orr wm i^junt, r.,r the .hip h. could only bind
« wuhin th« Kop* of bin •mploymant. and by Mting hi th« o.pii.,ity of .hip',
-gont: now th« «onlr«a »nd ti>« fmU .h«w«<l that tho .hipm«nt w.. m»d» by
•nd In tho n«m«of th« dcfmidanU na ,H,a.ignor». »..d th«r.. ..oui.l bo no prm^m/d
i..UnliootomdtMl»x,ughOrr'« ii»trun.«nUlily. » .liffor.nl conlr.cl, and for
othar partly. Aa to Orr'. .up,K««d agon„y for Darling ««!.« ho .«t«d in that ^
naniB and capacity, he could n«ith,*r bind lh« .hf,, to Darling nor Darling to tli^^

did not act for Darling, a fact that could not b« d«ubt«l, .oeing that til i^SV
fondant, own act preclud.Hl tho po«ibility of .Uoh boing tho c««.. -Thoy dio
prove thoiigency for Darling to hav. l-en of a .p«cial d.aractor ami to,minatod
langpravioualy, but whether Orr war agent for Darling or nfet; if even tho
•pnoy which terminated in* March had .ub.i«tod in May, h« could only dve
Darling the benefit of tho oontra«,t and involve him in tho re.i)on.ibily of it by
acting in hi. name, which he did not do; the defimdanu had all Jho benefit of
the contract a. they thoroby reserved to themwive. the entire control over tli.i
gCKHl. the defendanu are tho only (wrtie. privy to the contract, Darling i. no(
lhe.hipcannot.bocompullo<l ti» look beyond tho immodiato partio. to the*
contact, nor can thene parti^JJiji^hlmoived under pretence that othen, are in-
tere«ted. The defondanW aif %on»ignorH, and an .uch liable. Tho con.itfnor. '
are bo«.de. m regardH tl.o .hip the^actual proprietor., and tho only proprietor,
they can recognise of the good-, being vendor, without delivery, and retaining
the power, of proprietor.. A. to the word, in the Bill of Lading " Freight for
^ the Mid good, to be paid by the conHignee a. per agrement at tJ,o mto of-^
• pnmHgo and average accu.tomod." Thc«o are to be con.trued a. part of tho
context, and if ambiguoua, in a Mn.e adverse to the preton.ion. of tl.e person,
who wrote them, they could however, only imply that a rate of freight had
been previo,.«br named, which. the writer of the document could not for tho
•i^fc^ ™°"*"^ ^P^'^y^ **•" ^'""'^ "«t ««n'r«' "Of "l"»ngo the wJlMraxrf thp agreement,

nor 1. any .oparate .peoiflo agreenicnt proved with re JH^Jftte, it .hoiild^.*
^ tnereforo be the phiTailing ratdH the lime. tJI^BfPIKSi 'W^

y. Pophatn, for Defendant*.- In the firat place the fojHBBIoTEibn la bad

, ; -The BUI of Lading upon which it i. ba^^d, i. not filled up in the ordinary <onn' '"

A but aay., - freight to be paid" J.«, Ac. - a, per affreemenir Now a gLntu„l

"T" ^f \°'^'« "Pon » 8P««'fio contract. 1 Saunders PI. A Ed. 82.

janto cannot be held for the freight, becauw they made no contract

*-f implie^. tt ia proved that tlTe iron was delivered to Darting

onling^to his directions to them. Ori^ to whom Darling desired

dehvergAaq^ved the iron from them as Darling's agent, and

hey «rere umhl .liippen of the iron, and consequently not liable for

■ '

<^ •.

- ^ ■

'" ■_

^

\

-/

4

* . ■

:'■,.-■■ /

- ■ -.

■ . , - -^ ' ,, ^

-■ -.»■ t

■■■■'•

-■ -■

■ . ■ ■■':",» .- "■ ■

*. *

SUPEI^R COURT, ISftl.

IM

iM, .ipUlnod by ,M,rol t-.lin,ony. 7.f.u«U,„, Jf^^ ,,, „^ ^^.^ ' *'
IwMlIng hoy woro, l„ r«»,ily „ot ^ r,ui .i„.,.,y the v.„d«« >f frordeJ-

0 h.ROw on »H.h*If of D,.rli„K. ,„d who o.«m„I it ,o b* pUdM «„ J^ &J

the liill of U,li„g, wharein it wm •tipuu/ed th.t lh« fbitfRt
. p*r «/,rW«,|.- If th, «gn,«„ont which th« d«fiind.iHt '
prove<l to h.v, U^n m«l« lH,lw*«n Orr ...d D.rling. wm not tl|«
on. hero .IM<kJ to.lt w« lnou,nlH,nt«r, .he I'UintifT to h«v. .hown which he b..
not done^ wh.t w.. tho n.turo of hi. ,^^rwm•„^ .„d between whom it wm
made b«fore h« could rocovor upon th»t doeumcme^ It i. not proved. lb«t ^
dcfemUnU -grocd to dobvor .he iron in (J|«^ow. in MHr.,h. .ud had U.«v W
«>. the vendoe w.. ved th„ obIij,..io„ by hi. «...,pt„,.«« of the «/./.Wr ... April.
The iron w«. legally dolivfcre.1 to the vendoo in OlMgow befi.re the •hipmeot
J.ul the validity .f M.-. ,eti.er, could not be oflec.ed b/.hcn,.™ J„ oftkt
b..tt. name a. the ton.i;^i,o«, a. he ha« be.,n prov.,| to have been ,„or«ly W
vendor, avnnt. aiid Im <l..i:u...».i <i.- t>:ii « >••...... ■'

♦ J'l(l|ntifrii¥e«M.|. Tl
j^? '"»*'«* provetl to liav

, , . . ' "■^'.. |.i».(ii lu iiBvo ueen inoreiv tiM

!!;;;[':»:?!' ";•:' '«JJ^7"«V'"' ""• "' ^-*'"8 ^ I>-rli„g before th,. Hhip'.
r "".. n '*:TIP'"" ''* •"'^"'"'^ "'^ inconvenience thereby. W.
<lel.very of U.e IJ.Il of Cling to Darling, ^^oui i„.lor.cment, wa. a .uflfcient

trail.ror. Storv nn" <><intra«<a V» om. d i.<._i..- .V . . .

#

^-....fc. ■ o* * ■".rnng, irtfAOMi wiomcmont, wan a .uflicient

lr«n.fer. Story on' contract., No. 810; 6 E«pina«e, Dobbin v. Thornton. 1« ;
Long, on BaIo..p.p. 178,302. \

nADOLfcr J._In 18ft3, "Darling A go." rec.ivcd frora the defendants .
quantity of iron good. a. ordered, and by letter of 3rd October of (W
year remutod to the latter a bill for £«00 C. Od. on account rcqucting io
be informed of the u.ual differeno. of n.te made by the defendant, i^n the !J^
cu.,on of order, for different de.criplionli of their wafe.. By a letter in Nove*
ber following, a remittance wa. «dvi.ed of th6 balance £l67 0.. 2d. and addoJ
. JZ ™7 ^^ ^^'^ r '^ *""' ''»"' '«' •'''P™«°» i" M.rch, the .pecifl.aiion.

w U i!' *,rr^ "' 'T ^'-^--^ '"^•' '^^*" *''• MeikWham'the Bill ofl
Lading and th« duplicate of thi. order-^ Thi. Meikleham w«. the defendant.' "
genoral .gent at Mont real for the transaction of their bu.indlu. *nd for procur-

defendant, through their managing .-lerk, Maxwell. «plied to the letter of
Mr Meikleham that we have entered your order for 80 ton. of bar. at £10

rate or the P.yment of ca.b wHh a, discount Sixbecquently. however, Darling
* Co., having been infotmod that their .pecificationa could not be fumirfied
L ^' ?1 r™"'*^ •pwiBcation.-of Uop which were delivered to Meikfeh.™'

12 J 'I'l, T"",** '°^" ^'*'"«' »' K^'-h-'gh, the bother and agent of th,
wnter, direct«i the latter to pbt»in fr.ight for the orderediron fromXm« 0

a

,'* <w

■ /

\ -li.

*.

VA

V"'

1.

:\A *

//

i^6

.■*'

>«'

■ 4

%

■^.

.soVi^OB Court, issd.

,'Sltk^

Orr . sh,ri.ing ^ot «t Glftjspw. .^d which afterwyer.1 communioations UU

fetter <^lrtJtf.«A.,ign^i/«Ani)ar/.„^, /or IT. 2>, and «,nVto MeSdeham

r -!^' "^^X^ ?!f ' V*^^' ^<i««>»<''">t» th'oogh h«» were directed to h»ve deli-
^ .paSs^io Orr for««hjpmerft,1ind, by another letter, of the same date, from
J6hn Darhng to Or; himself, after reference to the communications between
hei^ respecting the iron and the freight, the former adds, " Please, at earliest
^ conven,encej«md me the name of the vessel, the consignee is Mr. William
JJarUng. John- Darling fiirther menUons to Orr, his orders to thf» defen-
dants for the delivery of the iron to him, Orr, for shipment. Snbseqnently the
defendants are informed by Orr of this intimation by Orr's clerk, and when the
goods Were ready for shipment, they were' marked W. D., and the defendants
received Orr's directions respecting their delivery on board which appears to
.have been attended to. It was at first supposed by John Darling thattL goods
tvould bertadyfoT shipment in March, but the late period at which-the correct-
ed specifications reached the manufacturers, the defendanto, prevented their
being shipped by the "Diana," a vessel on the berth for Montreal an^ Under
Urrs agency. In May following when the goods were ready, Or^ directed their
shipment on board of two vessels aUo in his agency, the larger portion by Uie.
California^^ and the balance by the "Mary." The ordersof John Darling
wei^ for the delivery of the goods to Orr foB shipment, and Orr, finding thev
could not go by th^ « DianV directed the defendants by Maxwell, their manaV
ging clerk, with whom Orr and his clerks had intercourse respecting the irooig.
to send to the Broomielaw, for shipment by the " California^' and -« Mary •" 'Z
change in the transacUons between Darling and the defendants had taken place
and the order for the goods remained uncanceHed. Maxwell establishes the
fact of the goods having been sent to and, shipped upon those vessels by the
4uection8 of Orr, who at the precise time of the shipments was absent from
Glasgow, but his shipping transactions were attended to by his shipping clerksi
The invoice was made out in Meikicham's name and the Bills of Lading were
filled up<intheu8ualmannerby Maxwell, showing that the goods were shippep
. by Uie defendants to Meikleham with thd stipulation-«ihe freight for the s^d
goods to be paid by the consignee as per agreement." The invoice and ship-
per s copy of the Bill of Lading wer? transmitted to Meikleham at Montreal bv
whom they were kibeived some time previous to the arrival of the « California?'
which first reached her port and ai once^'delivered over by Meikleham to Mr
I)arHng the real consignee, who afterwards passed tke entries for the goods

I,1,t"wTr-*^.*''' '""''' o4th of property to the invoice and paid the
duy. With the invoice and Bill 6f Lading in hand he claimed and obtained
delivery of the goods, as hb own propertyfrom the.ship, neither the ship master,
nor the ship consigrfee ^making objection to the delivery to him, as the con-
Signee of the goods. -

Risforthefreightbythi "California^ that this wtio^
and this «ipe freight has already given occasion'to two courses of litigation .
The first originated in a demand bf the defendants against Mr. Darling to

t

^^yfaiBfr=iirfwBfea=^Bffsaw'=^HaJWiB^'^^nTO^^

I ;

,^,

■' '^0tfffl-

8UPERI0B COUBT, laos.

107

received deUv.,y of it from 1 rhrsldl^ LLT'' '' *"'' '"" -'»
long after theVe-aelV departure fro Jtils'rTK^ "^ *'*»"?'""' «"»»«

Court was affirmed in appe.I upoHi.^ ar^^ Jhe judgement of the Superior

thedefendante throughTe sEff ihet't T' '*"' """""'* *«- P"<^ *»
the shipmaster the Plaintiff i„ this cause suSMSr' ''""."'"^ ""P"''
under the Bill of Lading and feilad umTnT^ Meikleham ■stl.e consignee

of .heirontoandacceptalebyi^^^^^^^^^^^ of M»e^perfected deliveiy

the case, no liability Ltached^rMe^ShLT.^"^^^^
Court in this case was also affirmed nnTl and f ^^TT'^ '^' ^"P*"^'
the cases are collected, commented .nV^ ? ^"' ^«^'"*' ^««i«ons. All
on'ShippingW the'lS^"^.^"J,j;X"' " T"* ^'"''^ *>^ Abbott
to Domett against Beckford^f ^d iKruT.' n^""" "^ '^"^«"<^-»
beendisturbed,a»*theruling8inv«iaavi„f'^^ >""*"• ''''•^
clause in the Bill of Lading fe nirtZ2 ' '^? '5' '™P'« ^'o-'-d " that the
and shipownerdid ZmlT^^^^""^ "^'^^yfo't^e benefit of the master
of the goods until pa^L^m oVSrbvZ^ ^"^ '**^' '*^ *'»»'J»oW the delive^
owaer of the good'4 not ILZt^ft^^^^^^ «o«-quently that Z
ship owner tp obtain pa.menffTomlL' ^ee ^'; tt "** ^f^' ^' ">«
the fact that the goods w^re laden on a shipTbe c«l J77'" '""P'^ '^°»
;; • ^ntract by Oie <^ner of the gZl t^n.^ f T^"^ ^"" *<>

Domett vs. Beckfo«l.>ThisgenLpSpl!rIrr^"'''««- '^- ^^^^
exception which is thus stated in L ^^\ ^ ^*'*'' K^^^^'ned by an
der. 540. -ifint it is d^Clf"th^;:l^^^^^^^ «P'^ by ila..

are not shipped on his account and fl hTbenerin^r^ ^^ *^' ~'"'«°*»' »»d
entitled to call on him." Having met wM ^n -^ '"" *^" «"^" » "ot

Plai^^^w turns upon the defef d»L afthe ^i^™ o^f f^S^'^^ ^«
them for the freight as consignora under .the BH^S^ I *''" «^ "»*' »»««
,of law applicable ,to the ordinary els of tf 1' k^ "«• '^' P"""?!*-
freight are olea^y stated by Fl7dTlii^^t'^''^ con«gnoi« for
J^But whilst the liility of th^e comitee i adttHf .'" f ^P"*' ^^' "»•
^under a Bill of lading such as de^r^ St fd^~i' T^^" ^^^»
IB exempt. There is no shifting of liaX Th! ""*' "*" '''"''^^^

and^nsignee fs not considered' to be Ssten ^fftl! t ""' ^"""^*''
ong^caTcontract upon a sufficient consideration « n T ^^"'^V^^b k an
/^ 244 and 17 Johns. 264." WnTel " f / * ""^ "^ ^r^Q^SFa^d
Aom^on than that there^should belTr^^l^TlT^ -«"•"* » -re
thesamething; and in this country (the US Wh'^^'° '^ ^»"« «"
principle that the clause in the m oJ Lit 'Z* "^ P'*^ "P<*° «»e
fij.gbt.».is introduced for the benefit of t^ cfrrief J^T ^^'"« ^''^
This principle asapplied in the United Statea. iul^LT ^^ consignor."
<MLibm Englidi decision, and jurispmdenc^ "^^^

It is My recognized in the SBthdtities cited uDon th«
abova^mentioned, but i, al«) e.tflMi,hnd 10-^ J^g^;^ P^°<^'P'« —

, - *^»'"« *>"' '""» Sergeant Sliee'a note

Fowlar

_ ♦••

Sttrling.

-3f<-

108

Ptmlor

I

I

8UPERI0R COURT, 18«8.

at same page, and may therefore be considered indisputable. The
question that remains, does this doctrine cover this case, must be answered
from the facts in evidence. It is proved {hat W. Darling of Montreal had
previous deahngs with the defendants of a similar kind with his last ordST
that upon his inquiry ho was iiiformed by them of their terms for sredit or
cash, that he sent his order to them and directed his agent in Ediabotgh to
procure freight from Orr, a ship agent i^t Olasgow, specially selected S himself
that the agent did engaga and agree with Orr for the frmght at a naiXd price
did order the defendants #o"gl» Meikleham to deliver fl^^ods ^pjOrr, and
transmitted to the latter alelivery order for the purpose, t^eSwr with an inti-
mation of the order sent M> defendants to deliver to Orr. That Orr peiuonally
and by his shipping clerks directed the goods to bo sent from the defendants'
premwea'to the Broomielaw for shipment on board of the •• California", that the
goods were so sent and shipped, that no specific agreement was ever made or
ontered into between the defendants, the shippers and ship master, that the
Bill of Lading was made out by Maxwell and contained the clause as to the
consignee /)oyin^/m5-A/«a«/w affreernent;' which could only refer to th«>
agreement for freight between J. Darting and Orr, that the invoice and Bill &
Lading were transmitted by Defendants to Meikleham, their agent in Montre^^
who at once delivered them over to W. Darting, by whom the necessary entries
were made as of his own goods and paid duties on them, and to whom delivery
was made by the plaintiflF at the ship's side, without objection or refiisal by the
plaintiff, or any objection thereto by the ship's consignee, and finaHy th^t W.
Darting's order was thus executed by the defendants and shipped and delivered to
him in due course at Glasgow, leaving it entirely in his own option to adopt the
credit or cash condition of its liquidation. Prom this state of facts, it is manifest
that the goods were W. Darting's from the time they were sent for shipment,
that they were shipped for his benefit and advantage, and that the defendants
were not the owners of them. "Where goods are sent from" a vendor to a
vendee, the delivery of them to the carrier usually vests the property in the
vendee, and he is the person to sue tho carrier for the loss of them ; 8 T. R.
830, 3 Bos. & Pul. 685, 2 Camp. 36. In fact and in law the defendants ceased
to be owners of the iron when it reached the ship's side, where it was both
actually and constructively delivered to Orr, in the double capacity of ship's
agent and agent for the purchaser W. Darting in Montreal. No liability can '
therefore attach to the defendants from any actual or presumed ownership of
the goods being in them. But it may be said this evidence cannot
override the written contract, the Bill of Lading produced, m which the defen-
dants style themselves shippers and erpo consignors, iut a Bill of Lading is
merely the shipmaster's formal acknowledgement of Jiis having received certain
goods on board for certain parties; his obligation to deliver them in like good
condition and the stipulation of a rate of freight, payable by the consignee, &c.
&o. The , Bill df Lading is, however, not conclusive. See Bates vs. Todd, J
Moo. & Rob 106V Tindal (Ch. J.) said " that as between the original parties, the
Bill of Lading was merely a receipt, liable to be opened bv the -cvidcnea=^

:^\

the real facts", &o. And this point is sustainedby corroborativrauthoSti^

--s.'.

SUPERIOR COURT, me.

— ^^*

The evidence of record shewa thmt ♦!.- . ,7 ""^ ~t —

Darling, not of the defend^n h Jt tfa" le^^M "''''''"' '"*' »^« P'^P^'^y °^
•gent, who directed their "h"le„t ^^ ^7 *!? T"* ""'^ *'"''* ^"' ">« -hip-

.it. alleges no ownership of the iTSTllla T "'"" " *""^ '" """"^
««ai„.t them to subject them Hlbl^i ! t^t"^;"" ""^ P"'"'"'''' ^»«*-^
liability doe. not appcr to be estawl h ^L t p'a^^^S^ ^''^

maintained. T ^'"""fl g action cannot b«

CroM «fe 5an<Tq/?, for Plaintiff. -A«Uwi dismissed

./. /'<?pAam, for Defendants. •

(A.o.*jrp.)

/ "MONTREAL, 28TH PBBEUAET. 1868.

; Coram Badolbt, J.

t_ • No. il78.

^cNamee V8. Hitnet^

■Id.l.ThM' '^"» ™^««0«"««T.-NOTIC. OF ACTIOX.

Hr » demum, •> • cue iMn fcct. • generl toue. «,d cwrnot be touched

S^r??*r/!^^*'"''8«''^«'^''«'«'P"'«>ninent. .
The defendant, by his first plea, allcffed thar r^, T

n the plaintiff's declaration, the plStl bluna . """"'^ ''"'*"'" ^* '"^'^^
in writing of the action, and of Le cll!^K . *^'' '^' ^«''«"'^«°t °o«co
before the institution ^^^ andT h sTh •;"?*'^"''*' "-^'^ *» !-«'
upon the countiy. - \ ' ^ ""^ '^'^ ''^'^ ?'«« ^^e defendant put himself

The plaintiff demurred to kXtc fl~f ..i t
ia this Province requiring the notiW^L^'^^^^ '}''' " "° ^'''^ "<>' «*«^»te
of the nature of this oJ^^t^tX^J^:""^, *^'" ^^ P'«» '» -^«
one of law, the defendant's conclusrnHo a Sht ^^' ™^^ ^''^ ^«"g

•uch law issue. ^°' * *"*' ^J' Jury *annot be granted on

anth:Zi^r:;::i:';:rr^ ^e^n.

proposes to establish that ho wasTtin^r ^ *"""*• ""^^ ^^ ^^'^h he
vided. He also pleads the waToT a C^! IV***"? ''\ -«''-- P-
have been given in conformity withl^Wuto S"" f-'"'^''''' ''^ch should
this last plea, and the demuL Ist'liSiJ?' ? ^^^*^'"""^ *«
the Provincial Lar«eny Act, Tand 5 ^c^Ht J' ?"'* *^ ^^^^^^^^ thSt.
every particular oflanguage and^rovisiinVrm i' i"-^" *^P'*^ almost in ^

Ftowler
8tirilii»

110

SUPERIOR CX)

TJipr,

1869.

r

^^"yf affording him a month's notice of action, with the plea of general-iasne and
BioMkV^^^cial matter in evidence. The British andPronncial Statutes being similar in
the particular provisions involved in this case, the jurisprudence pf.the English
Courts will obviously guide our decisions in this Province in cases nnder similar
circumstances. In this case the point ti^rns upon the hona fidt, belief of the
defendant that he was acting under the statute. The Act was not made for
those who act in conformity with its requirements, but for^ the protection of
thoxe who might act tgainst it, but yet under the belief that they acted under
its provisions. Lord Tenterden observed in Beechey vs. Sidis: ** If he acted
" lawfully he would not require any notice whatever. The intention of the
" section of the Act was to prbtect persons acting illegally, but in supposed
" pursuance of the statute, and with a hona fide intention of discharging their
" — '--- " duty under the Act of Parliament." " It has uniformly been held, that where
a party, hona fide, believes or supposes he is acting in pursuance of an Act of
Parliament, he is within the protection of such a clause *' ; 0 Barn, and Cr. 808,
800; BO also the CouTt of Exchequer, in Hughes vs. Buckland, 15 M. and W.,
854 and 5. In this case, Parke (B.) says," the Act is general in its ternds, and
gives jurisdiction to all persons for all act^ done in pursuance of it. These words
do not meap acts done in strict pursuance of iba't Act; because, in ^uch a case,
a pairt^would be acting legally, and therefore would not require protection.
The words, therefore, must be qualified by the decisions ; and then the meaning
^ will be, that a party, to be entitled to protection, must hona fide and reasonably
believe himself to be authorized by the Act. From the foregoing, it will also
be seen that the Act must bo taken to be general in its terms, and not to be
confined to Peace Offlccrff, ^^, but to ^xj^nd to all persons believing that they
abt under it. The notice of action may always be demanded ^when the party
prosecuted had reasonable ground for supposing the thing done by him was done
' in execution of or under the authority of the statute." . Cooke vs. Leonard, 6
Bam. & Cr., 355 ; Cann vs. Clapperton, 10 Ad. and El. 582.

The plea of notice is, in fact) a general issue, and cannot be toubhcd by a
demurrer. The point involved is a matter for the Jury, not for the Co^rt. ■

Demurrer dismissed.
Jif. PoAer/y, for plaintiff. '

W. A. Bovey, Attorney for defendant. '

.Edward Carter, Counsel.
(P.W.T.*W.A.B.)

Authorities cited by defendant's Counsel : —

■ - . ■ . '

imperial Act, t and 8 Geo. IV.j cap. 29, sections 63, 75, (Oollyer's Orim. Stat.)

Provincial Act, 4 and 6 Vic, c. 26, sections 65 and 67 ; and 14 and 16 Vic, c. 64.

Beechey vs. SidiS) 9. Barn, and Cress., .806.

Reed TS. Oowmeadow, 6 A.dolphu8 and Ellis, 661, ftc. . %-

Hugliea vs. Buckland, 16 Meeson and Welsby, 344. ^ '

Jones vs. Oooday, 9 ditto, 736.

-,■ *

«- V-. ■■■ ■

• ■

' ^pe'FPJI'^ l-'^iT^

. 'ill • '

SUPERIOR COURT. 18M.

411

' •'O'^'MAl. Mm MBBUABT, 1M».

Coram Badolxt, J.
• ^ HcMfc

March 1868 Jeaving five minor cbVreTjfffV^.^^^^^ -bout the Ut of
him, the eldest ag^ thirteen yX a„d 1 "^ '"""^ ''^^" """""g* »ith "^
- on the 24th of March last. Johfo W ^T^""' *"'**^° "^"'h' That ^
the absence of the Feiit^or^Xi'^Z:^' L iTJT *"* ^'''^'«''' ^^ »'
without any right to do 80. presented a n«L.!'*'^' """^ °"""»*' «»<*
andsubtutortothesaidniinorn^^eaTH^^^^^^ ^J"* appointment of a tutor
ber of friends, in defaultof reltlt^ of Tit. '^'""^' the re<,„isite num- ,
his petition; and without her Wle^e ' f ""''"^ *" ^"^^ ^'•*'' "^^«« »?<"»
•-pointed tutor, and George Nunn sub-^^To r"'"^^ """''' '*''"'^^''" "^^ P"
ft«e was composed of eftire stZer^to t ! 1",T^ "'?"• '^^'' '^' -*'^
the tutor had removed the child3 om ht 7 ""^ **•*'"• •"«'^«'- That
of their keeping and comfort Tha bv law T '' "^ ^''*' '''' "'^ ^^^P'^-^d
of her children in preference to .7 J ' """ '"''"^^ *« "»« «««to<ly of

pointment of tutor ^d suSuto^ ll TTT' '*"' ''''''''^^ ^»"'t *»>« »P-
would Oder that a ^^w a^^le^tt If *"',r """^'' *"^ «»»* '''^ Cou^t
The petitioner filed a cop^o ^2^.^ 5.'^ ;f "'"''' ^*""«'-
To this petition the dekld^tJ^t ^'''^^r^^' ^^^i asides- ^.
long-before and at the time oJlr ttnli^ S r"'' ""'"^ '^^''' *^^
ever since continued to be a person oft^f ! Z- ^' P'-*'^'**"«' ^«» «°d had

and character. totallyunfitoWetherear^^^

sl»e was a notorious drunkardTnVS.T . ^^^^ ""^ ^^^ '*'^ ''^"d'«« 5 that
Wh of her husband. Jkttrthelu^^^^^^^^ "-^d-- tt

ennessand disorderly conductrth/1 f^ . ^'''^^'^^'^'^^'fo'dnjuk-
^ining the said chilLn. and rri^'ll"' "" "'^^'^^ --?««« of main-
fact, long before her husLd di^a^^^it "^ ' r^f ""^'''' ''^'^ -
any care or charge of the children b^Teft Th ""^l "^^ "^«'^*«^ *<> '^-

tute condition, so that th,y wersup " 1^^?,? V ^'^^^"^ '"'* ""^'^^^ ^esti-
other persons interested in thllr iSf^ ^ ° *"*^ of the Defendants and

That the appointment of tutor was m'«/l« {« * .
competent number of friends ofZl^ • ^f'^'^^y ''ith the advice of a

\

^ 1

112

SUPERIOR COURT, 1869.

WtdMU

'K

en habits and disirderly conduct of the mother, and her consoquent total unfit-
new to have the caire and guardianship of the children, and tliat it was essential to
4beir moral and physical welfare, that some other guardian than the toother
•hould be appointed, and because there were no other relatives within the juni*
diction of the Court.

^ The defendants also denied all the allegations of petitioner, not specially ad-
mitted by the plea, and prayed the dismissal of the petition.
- The petitioner by her replication to this plea, denied that her habitfl and cha-
racter were such as the defendants alleged, and said that sometime previous to
the death of her husband, she received from him a blow upon the head, which
BO disabled her, that she was obliged to go into tho hospital; and that it was
only while suffering from the effecU of tho blow, that her children were, if ever
neglected by feet-; ^nd tha^ if she were ever guilty of the bad conduct referred
to in defendant's plea, it was while suffering from the effects of said blow and
the cruel' treatment of her husband, but that she was before and has been since,
a person of proper conduct, and as such entitled to the direction of her children.

An enquite was ordered upon these issues, and several witnesses were examined,
and the Cause inscribed and heard on the merits.

BADOLEr, J.— This Tutelle sought to be set aside was given under the follow-
ing circumstances.

The petitioner was married as by certificate of Rev. Mr. Wilkes to her hus-
band Thomas C. Speirs in 1846, to whom she bore five female children, who, at
the date of her petitiofa, were of tender years, as by baptismal Certificates of
Rev. W. Bond, the eldest being nboui 18 jreais and.tjie youngest 13 months.
The parents for late years previous to the husband's d^th had Jed a miserable
life, he was a man of violent temper, and had b&ome almost blind and incapa-
ble of procuring support for his family, whilst she, the petitioner, had become a
reckless drunkard, finding meansto continue her intemperanife, but none for her
family, constant broils ensued between them, aggravated, doubtless, by the des-
titution of the family, his inability to procure food and raiment for theto, and
her utter abandonment to intemperance, until finally in hi& rage he struck her so
violently, that the stupidUy of drunkeness under which she labored at the time,
vfSA converted into insensibility, and it is supposed fearing that he had actually
killfci^her outright he committed suicide upon himself by cutting his own throat;
kind neighbours, and among the number, Mr. Brown, the Respondent, who had
previouslj charitably assisted the unfortunate family, interested themselves (Tor
them all at this juncture; they procured admission for the insensible petitioner
into the Montreal General Hospital, and gave food and clothing to the children
and provided for their care and protection. This occurred on the- 28th of Fe-
bruary last, and in the ensuing 1st of March, the deceased husband was buried
after a Coroner's Inquest had been dijy had. In the state of destitution into
which the children were thrown with no relative but their mother, and no
friend but those who had extended kindness and charity to their parents and
themselves, it yte considered proper to place the almost orphans en Tutelle for

r»ud Bupervtslon of ihwr pfeirons. The mother wa^^^^ as con-

valewent from the hospitidon the22Dd day. of March last, having reoovered

V- WTfT^ninHW^fF

SUPERIOR COURT, I8«».

iia

>'

from tho effect- of the violence coinmitUnl upon her, kmi from an incipient at-
tack of delirium tremens produced by intemperance, and on the day of her dis-
charge was notified of the intention to appoint* Tutor to bcr children, the notice
intimating time and place f..r the appointment. She did not appear at the
a,mnblde y,hKh took place on the 24th of March last, and Mr. Brown was duly
appointed Tutor, and from which office her petition prays thit bo may bo ri
moved and another <men^Uc had f.,r another appointment upon the following
groundif; because he was so ap,H,inted without her knowledge or consent-
because he took her children from her care and custody, and removed them to'
parts unknown ; because she has been deprived of the comfort and keeping of
otlr Z'a" '" ^^ ''''''"'"''^ to their care andcnstcxly in preference to all

The R<.B,,ondent has put in issue Jier personal unfitno^' to have the care and
charge of he ch Idren Ij reason of her intemperance and dissolute l.Z ^1
and present, and this issue she has acepted by her replication, alleging her good

hmme hat the children had no relatives but their mother, and no friends but
tJu,se who protected them after their father's death, and further, that no impu-
tation morally or personally has been cast upon the Tutor, the objfection as to '
h.m res,,„g upo„ the fact merely of his being a stranger. Hence it must follow

Til-hTtr"-"^ ."*'"■■*' '■'^'''' "* " ™°'^*''' ''«' '"'^icmal fitness, is not ^
Turnn 1 f ' T "" .^ "'/'"'"" ^"^ ''''"'"^ a«iJe this appointment for the
purpose of makmg another, of another stranger.- Now as to the main point the
mothers fitness, the testimony is conclusive, that she had been sottisl^y i^eZ
perate^ for a long time before the unfortunate occurrence detailed above, and
that he 1 1 LabKs previously acquired stuck by her even after her discharge
Wthe hospital. Her intemperance since that time is also establis ed «m
hassh^wn her to have baenjhe inmate of the police station house. uLnko
anger, m emperance is proved to Be do short madness and such habits and mi^
conduct^ndependent of t^e established facts of her i.ial,ility to su^plhle"
her precarious employmetTt for her own subsistence by 'oJasionanrourTnH '
w^hojt a home for herself, .nder manifest her unfit„i to hrL eh ' j
care of these young female children. The law has widely left a discret fn in
the Judge m this respect, and assumes to itself the protection and s ipe isio"
•iver children against the notorious ill conduct and^issoluteness of parXwher-
everthelawis-calledupontoact. It is at all tim.. difficult to JnTapa^entV
claim to the oiire of her children, but that claim must rest upon moral and tr
.onal fitness of character and not upon profligate qualities w'hi:h " t eaX
children to vice and immorality. The case cited on the part of the p tloner
has noapi^llcation to this matter: there a jew irrand-fath.r „ ^ P'^'T*^'
tutor provisionally to his grandchildren iJ7rcl^:,Z2!:2t
donng her minority, attendu la mimriti de la mire ; upon atf ainiS hi, 1 T
majority^h. claimed and obtained the TaUUe of tie p^ons o t' £
There was no question ip that case of persond unfitne^'.n. ...^ ;;;;;; ^.^

Ultfhtill

VII,

Dniwn.

Mitcholl

VI.

Hn)WU.

114

SUPERIOR COURT, UHo A 18flY

; 18l/o

petitioner's mincondiict rendew her (llio mother) pomonally unfit, and tlio peti-
tion Icing uimiipportod by proof in tlio other pnrtioulara muHt bo diwni»ited with
cohU. It i« only necessary to R<ld in conc^iwion that all proper acoesn to the
rootlier upon proper occnsionft slioidd bu alloVotL

The judgment is ; " The Court, 4:o., conwdering th«t tho eRtabliiihed miscon-
duct of the petitioner, ineowtiiite notuire, for along time previous as well as sub-
sequent to the appointment of the Ui-spondent to tlie tutidle sought to he sot
aside in this case to tho minor childrt'n, issue of her muniago with the laie Thomas
Speirs doceised, rondcrs her altogether unfit to receive and take siich 7^M/e//«,and
considering that tho said Tittor is not charged with any moral or personal unfit-
ness or incapacity, nor is any BU(;h proved against him, in or by reason of tho
discharge of the duty of bis office, and considering that the s^iid children have
no relations whatever to whom the said Tutorship could properlylw given, and
finally tliat the allegatiotis in tlie said petition contained have not been proved,
doth dismiss the said petition with costs."

w - Ti t I e n ^■.- Petition dismissed

Marcus Doherty for Petitioner.

^amuel W. Dorman for Defendants. .

(F.%.T.A8.W.p.) ,

MONTREAL, 81 OCTOBRE 1887.

Coram Smitu, J., G. Mondklet, J., Badglbt, J. i^

BT

MONTREAL. 29 NOVEMBttE 1857.

Corajn C. Mondelbt, J. /

No. 772.

Lynch vs. McLennan et aU ; La Banque du JIaat- Canada, Tiers saisie.

OONTEaTATION APUfcS l'bXI'IRATION DD OtlM.

Ju(?<5,Quo pourfttreadmUAcontest^rladtfclarationd-un'tlors-saisl apre.s Vriipiratloh du ddlai n^A
par la rtglo de pratique, il faiit montrer cause aufflMute pourquol U contestation na nu n . ul/
dana le dtilai) / "i~»oiiiiesi/

/ /

La declaration de la Banqup du Haut-Canada tiers-saisio avait 6t6 faito le si
juillet 1857. / ' , •

Le 17 octobre 1867, 1^ Demandour deramda par requite qu'il fftt admis k
contester ia declaration de la tiere saisie nonobstant I'expiration du dolai fix*
par la regie de pratique appuyant sa demando d'un affidavit dans Icquel le dit
Domandeurallegiiait qu'il n'avait pa recueillir-les informations n^cessaires pour
contester que difflc^ement et depuis I'expiration dss dfilais ; savoir— Idul
rdcemment, et qu'il/dtait expos* 4 souflfrir des doinmages s»'il n'6tait p^ admia
k contester. / '

La cour trouvi/ces motifs insMffisants et renvoya la requfite par iuffemenl dn
31 octobre 185'^'. i j js uu

Le 17 noveii^bre 1857, le Demandeur renouvela sa requ6te qu'il appuya d'un
nouvel affidavit, dans leqnel il alI6guaH que juiqu'au 29 septfembre pr6c6dent
(18n7) il n'avftitpn nhtenir lea JBfenaatiQna ni^noMairts po^^«^twpfenare uue

■^.-^ a gp-J— 9n

COUH SUPfiRIEUUE, mi A 1868.

110

ooDto«t«t.on dmpendleuw; qu'il lui .v,lt f«Ilu communiquer .t*o Ie» offloinr. l, ,
du gouvorneiuont A Toronto, et quo c« n W qu Wi. avorr Lcul - "

g6n6r«l,unoloUrod«t6ed«2C»c,.te..ibr6l867 IT ■7"'"'" ^" '""'^'"'""•^ •""-""•'■•

i)ou/r« w Z>aoM,/, pour Demnndour. B«qu6to accord6o.

^ow et Jtfonk, pour Tiorn saisio.
(J.D.)

MONTREAL, tsrn OOTOBBB, 1858.
Coram Badolet, J.

Np. 2309

Lambert v». Bertrand.

1

« in ««r 01*, to «.vo the a«r„„a^t .... A." b^Si^rXi; r^J.^TS^^^^^^^^ ""' ^

This was an action en homage. In the plaintirs title-deed his Inn^ „
described as containing two arpents in front by thirty arlr i„ JlnU 1

'r;:!?:-"""; "^'^r^^ ''^ ^* -p-ts-^heizrt^dt ';";;:

Evidence haying been a,hliiced. and the parties heard, the Court renderoi ^
the foilow„,g j„.igmont:-"Con8iderns that the property of the IS!
appears by the dee<. of sale to hi.n made thereof.^ wlil dee t Mn'm

• 2^1l Ir ' T t^"'*"' '" ^''''''^ «" '''« '*"« «f '»>« d«l>tJ' thereof an"
uoh.d.fic,ency has been established to have existed dun„g\he Js-l-^n
t ereo y h,s auteur., and that the property of the defendant^has alw^^rbeej
of the f" I extent of two arpents in front by thirty arpents in depth; and con"
«denng t at the d.v.s.on line between the said two p«>pertie» hasljn partLlIy
estebhshed and acted upon by the partiea or the auteur, of the said p2
before the .nstuufon. of this action, and that there did exist, by hne fenL^a^
dUches along the said line, running backwards from the fro^ to uSS^
about ten arpe„ts;-doth order, avani /aire droit, that by a swonilanS sur-
veyor, to be named by Uie parties wi.hin eight days, at the office of I Prth"
ooury of this Court^ and, in default thereof, to be named e. officio by this Jourt
or by one of the Judges of this Court in vacation, a line of division be drawn
between the sa.d respective properties' of the parties, plaintiff and defendant
and boundaries be fixed, determined »r,^ -^-i-..-.-:. ^ - • ""'""^'ans

andboundar.es be fixed, determined and Mtablilhfld at the plao<, whew tha
property of the plaintiff tctche. and joins the Ld of Z deSeS. Z^:;^

L

">

I

"•

SUPERIOR COURT, 18S8.

iMtnhrri

■ »»,
Hi-rtHMitl.

to tli« titlen of tli« uid psrtlot; i^ut lo th«t in tlio t»x(en«ion.of Ihe imid diviaion

lino from from toj*iir tliewme tbair, m fnr tk inay^, ron in iho direction of

Ui« Raid fitncm and ditcliw, und tiO'M in any omo to giro tho defendant hi* full

biea<lfli and depth afurt'imit^ aw-ortling to lili titleii, tho partien pro»ont or aft«r

having b«en didy notiflod: ojf whifeh op«rat!on tli* laid lunreyor it hereby

ort|,.!red to inako a report to thT* Olpnrt with all duo diligpn^ together with •

figurative plan (dMoriptiy^) df the pNmiaea. Co«U ron«ijrve<i^

IT • ^ ^ !- Survey ordered..

Steottt it Chagnnn, for plnlntiflT. •

Cherrier JJorum db Dorion, for defendaift. . «

(•. B.) \ • .

I ^ MONTBBAIi, Utii (X}TOBBB,^BU. ' . . "

^ ' CorOTO.C MONDKLBT, J._

____ ^ „.__ No.tS97. " -', '-'" - ■ -

PaUgrave v«. Sinical tt ai, and Pritur, oardikn, Petitiqnef* ;

Held,— Thkt the aaniien of movnahio proporty cannot, dnrin* tho pondenoy of thi) M^i^- «>mpoI
the lurrender to him of such movMble property by the defendant, in tho nNiJii^'nr pusltive
proof that the dofvnd)knt ia dutnrioratlriK it by Improper 1^. \f'° '^-^ ,

This was a petition l>y a t/arJietf under a taitie mobiliire for art onfor on the
defondnnta to surrender tho poR«euioa of thfe property seized, on the* ground
that the defendants wore m.iking use of the same agiiinst tho will of the ffardien,
and tlj«t the effect of their soi doing w«« to expose the proportjr to deterioration '
and damage.

The applicalion was resisted on tho ground, that, itjhuffardien wished. for
possession of the property, he should have taken it.|^'b<8 own possession at
the time of the taiaie ; and that, as he had not doh(Q»ao( Ibjpt had left the pro-
perty in 4|he hands of the defendants, he c(Ju^d not now complain, unless he
proved that the defendants were making an improper use of it. The property
hero seized was a printing press; and tho defendants had done nothing;, more
than use it in a legitimate way, namely, by prrating with it.
The following was the judgnqent of tho Court: — „ "

"Consid6rant que le gnrdien en cetto cause, F. X. Priour. est mal
fond6 en sa requ6te, attendu qu'il n'avait aucun droit de s'empafer de la •
presse d'imprimerie dont il eat question, dans lo but de I'enlever, de sa propre
autorit6, oomino il I'dtablit lui-m6me, par les affidavits de ^a dite requ^, et
qu'il n'est pas en droit de se plaindre du refns des d^fendeurs de laisser le dit
gardien enlovor la dite presse.

" Consid^rant que le«dit Prieur n'a aucunement 6tabli ni proav6 que la dito
presse d'imprimerie se d^t^riore par I'usage qu'en font les D^fendcurs, ou se
d6t6riorera en telle sorte qu'tl y ait juste cause d'ordonner que d^placement en
ait lieu, et que les D^fendeurs cessent d'en avoir la possession, suivant la loi.
Benvoie la dite requite aveo d6pens." V

^' Petition rejected.*

. ^. P. Pomtnvt7/e, for petitioner.

M. Mdekay, Counsel.

2>ott<r0, .2>a<n<«( (£ i)ou<r«, for defendants. "' * . '
(8.B.) i '

. . '. . - ' I -.-^-i-„: i-.j„ : ^-„ '

(&B.)

• Authorities cited by petitioner'B donnsel : — Jonise, Ord. of 106T, Art 15, tit 19.
Pothi^r, Proc. Civ., Oh. 2, Art 6, seeL iiL, 4 Carr<, Q a055.

": y-

-^,,

ft

flUPBRIOR COURT, 18d8.

'^^
X

Applioalion granted.

MOXTRBAL. 8(>rH DKCBMBBB^Uoa. "

Coram Baoolbt, J.

N0.I8M1 •

The Aitomey Oeneral,pro Regina, i„fom,«nt. va Be^lieu.

.-_"'?0''»* *•'• ■»••• «"•" of th« p.rt, to «. JITu?!"*,?." .•^rf"""'" of h^u hM been

t> f\: . . ^^

-Wwarrf^i^fcr, for Defendant. V *

(8.B.) •>•• > ,

'^^

MOWTBtm MW OBCIiran. MNb

O*'*''! nADotir, J. *•

I'M CuRiAH.-Tlim M A petition to put |„ ,oe«|.| k n ^ .
clreura.t«no... The defendant w.. ar ,i od T. '■ ""*'°' *'"' ^«"*>'^'''«

•nd gave bail to the Sheriff. On tl e T.^ T ![ ' T'^ '^ r^P-ndendum,
™.da a .otion to ,u.h. which fel!^^^:;^!" T'T TT'^ •"'^
judffment in ortlinary courw. About t.l,*; The plaintiff then too|:
the b..nd.men who now f„e . lut 1 1 Z" ' T"" "** P'*'"'''^ "-'

^^a^a^ithe.^:;^--:^^^

ZfWanc d CatHdy, for plaintiff.
«*«-ri.r, Dorian 4 Dorum, („ petitioner..
(ftB.)

V A rimflar Judgmeat ii^ md.,«I |» the cm,, 4397 t.. 0«,t.a«.

IIH

'^^ sdFfeRmn COURT, mt.

K

-ir-'*r

' HOXTUAL, Mm DIOIMRRR, Xtm.

•' C'ornm lUiiuLRr, J.
No. tn.
CampbtU it al. tw. llt»Uit.

n«i<l. In Iha tmm of • rrMUm ih Jiutte0, th*l no mitl«»llnir olrcunutMioM omi prwmit t>M I
la » eunlrutmt0 pur eiirin.

Per Curiam.— T\m i* n r»ilo (hr m emtntnlt par corpt ng^\mt the dofAnditnt
fur ffMlion dtjuitiet. I^ would Rpponr llmt tliA bnilifl'clinri^.uil wiUi Iho writ
of exociilioii wont to ili« lUifdhidMiit'ii hotiM to effwit tluB Miiiiro, but tho dofund*
ant Ixjing at tho moment upiitiiini, (he bailiflT bruited Eielow An<l entored into
convorRAlion with the clerk, in tho cotirM of whi<h ho exprfMUtd liiini«cir freoly
'r«*pe(;ting'tl|)«) con<lu<;t of tho dofendnnt, and pnrtiouhirljr rofurrod to a judgment
which had boon put in execution tho day bofor6, an a Khttm. The dcfundant
•oon came down, and inoro converaation followud, irritnting i» itn nature. The
bailitf hanile<l him tho warrant, and whilo ho wna looking over it wont behind
tbfl counter to make tlio aeizuro. Tho defendant thereupon tpok him by the
collar, the clerk oiMincd tho door, and tho bailitr waa put out. The reeor; find-
ing thouiaelvos of no furtiiur uao, followed. Within half an hour, howovor, the
dcfondant, convinced that lio had aotcd unwarrantably, prococdo^J to tho ofiico
of tiio plaintitTH lawyer and naid that ho folt ho had done wrong, that he had
beon provoked to it, but that thoy might npw go and niako tlio Kui/,uru ami be -
would not offer any oppoaition. lie went also to tho HheritTa offlio and upoko
to tho Biimo effect. Up to thin time no return had b^n inado. Tho only
question is, docs tho cancl'como under the ordinance! Tiioro can bo no doubt
that it docs; and, altliough thoro are many mitigating circuniHtanccs connected
with tho nffiiir, the defendant had no right to tuko tho law into his own hands.
It was hel(i by the Court of A|)poal8, in tho case of Merctjro ahd Laframboiso
(p. JOS, 6 vol. L.O. Roport^, where (he defendant's conduct was merely nega-
tive—he looking out of an upper window and refusing to open the door when
the bailiff rang the bell— that tho contrainU must go. I cannot, therefore, refuse
the writ in a. case like the present, where tho bailiff has been violently ejected.

Rule absolute.
A. tt W- jRoberUoh, for plaintUIs.

G'por*;* Jfacroe, for defepdant. ^"^

(8.B.) <■ ■^ . '--

^, MONTREAL. SOTH DBCEMBEB, 1888. , "'

Coram JIadolbt, J. _

No. 3<S. »

McBean, v»i DeBarUeh <t DeBarttch et al, mi» en cause <t Drummond Opposant

Hdd.— That mi exeontion, ittued on • Judgment aemiuit lerend dcfandsntt Jointly, directed aBiinit
one of tbem for tho whole debt U Illegal and will bo ict Mlde on optmritlon. without even a tender
of the amount roally pajrable by luoh deOsndant.

This waa an opposition iAJin d'annuler fylod by one of the mi$ en csum, on"

■vrf,

"f

r

t

♦ SUl'Hl^lfHl OOUBT, ISM.

«i iliiti I '- - - ' •

110

Th« I'kli,ii<r contontttl on th« ffroun.l tlml tl.« ,l i.. ' i . •^■"•rt*.!.

. ir. ray/o)-, for PIftlntiflr . OpiKmition nmiiiUinedi

MONTMAL, Slit DICRUDKB. Ilsil.

Coram Rmitii, J.

No. taM.

/''•/^m VH. CAm/m clil St. Amour.

i" .1.0 .aHo which i. fa,„I L th„ pUinUI C^, . /;' Uu^

li.n.H U I'o can lmvo«o action „«ai,..thi8 Co-partner to compel l.h„ to TX
an H..co„nt Th.ro boin^.o offer o. ten.Jor oLk account by th Pla^ti he
action nuist nocu,.ariIy bo di8,ni«»ea willi co.U. ' .

Louif mianger, for Plaintiff. / * ■^*'"°" dlBmiisod..

Z#A/««c <fr C«M/(/y, for DofontMnt. ' '

).

' *- '

MONTRBAL, 91bt DRCKMBKK, 1888.

Coram SMirfi, J. -

No. 8.
Sa-,xdtr,on y.. Jioy ^ lapemfe d'Jioy dH Lapen,ie,Oppo.nnt. ,

^ Per Curiam .--This i» an opposition djin d^annLrfjhd by the Defondant
«s.g„,ng several grounds, but tho only p„i„t which L attract^ the a«SoS
the Court ,s that the sheriff has „,ade out but oneM*»;..6«/ <Ie ,ZSd^

, ■"" """ ""l "IIU

the two executions, namely the one in this case, an

®8llier, yetj^rnasraucU as they

the other in No. 8, Pajliser
allows tlie Hheriff>lo

-^.

o

"-\^

afit Hpnn-

//T

are separate and indepeniknt

f

*■

i:o

SUPERIOR COURT, 1858

■ — ' — ■■ '•-.i-.t " „ ■ •

Namlrntoii ,„• ii , ' ' " » "^

ments of the ordinance of 1607. I must, therofore^aintain the oppoBition.,\ "

Mo/ison, for Plaintiff.,,
iomnyer rf- Loranger, for Defendant <b Opposant.

Opjiosition maintained.

(8. B.)

^ MONTREAL, 3 J WARS 18S9; V '

\ Coram Smith, J. • -

. ■ ;■ ■'" No. 702. ■ .'!,;.;-,. J ;' ~-

^y«<•A V8. Zfrfttc «f i/oMiew, Opposant.
--T— ; , -^^ Enbeoistrkmbnt— Baiixsub de fpnds. r " :

'"**' 11 ;i!I.!!f' "'"';.*'' """^' ""' "'' '^ •""«B'»trt dws le. «1»1, flxtf, par la leme Vict Chan 2M

.> tfe demandenr ayant fait vendre 8ur «n jugement I.ypoth6cairo une t^rro

l«s«6cI6o par lo D^fendeur, et rargent dtant rappor(6 devant Ja cour, deux
oppositions afin de conserver furentproduites l^ine iiar Antoine Matbieu, I'autre
par le Demahdeur. -' ,^ » ^ ' "

Antoine Mathieu fondart son opposition sur un acte d'6ehnnpe pass6 le 3

V <^vn6r 1851.avecF. Secours dit MaslSTqui avait rc5U en 6ch«nge la terre

vendue en cette cau.e,- et s'otait charg6 do payer 4 Mathieu une soulte qui

naVart P«« encore 6te pay6e, lors du d6oro., et que I'opposition redamuit aveo
,5nv.ege de_ B.uileur de fonds. L'enregistrement de cet acte n'«vait 6t6-
effectue quo le 4 avril 1855.

Le Demandeur Lynch fondait son opposition sur une obligation 4 lui consentie
avec hypothoque sur la terre vendue en cette cause le 22 mai 1866, par Pierre
Belard d.t Latour alora propri6taire de la dite terre. L'enregistrernent de cet
acte ava.t 6t6 effectu6 lo 25 mai 1^5, po^tine^remeni d tmngi»trement de

^ Le rapport de collocation ayant colloqufe Mathieu de prfeference-4 Lynch ce
dernie* contesta le rapport sur les motifs suivants. '

. ^^»f/7bre 1852, Francois Secours, qui avalt re^ju en 6change de Mathieu
a terre d6cr6i6e, echangea la nr6me terre «vec Antoinfe Bonhomme, sans aucune
soulte et 1 acte fut^enrogmtr6 le 6 avril 1^53, a.a„M'enregistrement de I'echange
entreMathieit^tSecours. " :/ »'"»ug».

)t^ ^^1Y!S- ^' '^"*°'"' B6nbomme^angea la mfime tei^ avec Pierr^
, , Lntour, kde^^ur de Lynch, sans soulte, et I'acte fut enreglstr* le 27 octobni
7 1854, encore avant Tenregistrement de l'6chan> entre. Mathieu et Secours.

^;^el'"'fix6,parlaiemo: Vict,,Chap.206.Sect.6; c'est-4^ire dans les 6 mois

.-idu 14 jum 1853, date de la sanction du statut susoitfi, Pierre B6lard dit Latour

^va.tacqo.slarplemeetenUdr6lib6rationd«^l'hypoth^«e de Mathieu, lorsqu'il

%* A .Imiiar juagment w«i rendered in the cause No. 8, Pa«W m. Roy ditlfl^wto.

T^'

-^■^

'•• •

SUPERIOR COURT, 1869.

•0 servir son d6bite«r pour Cie una dr .™°''" '' '"'^ '°"* ?'""-'
de la part de Mathieu. il JZTLTJZT, '" It^'"'''^" ^''-^Poth^que

U cour adoptanr, ces ,„otif« a IV. L! ^^ . ^'^^^''"'' »" dit Mathieu.
1. r6fo„„a,o/du rappoK ^eZTColtZ^;^''''^^^^^^^

J)outre, Daouat et Doutre, pour Lynch Contestation maintenue.

^ ZeWa„c./(7a,«rfy, pour Mathieu. *

lijriii-ii

vit.
Lediic.

CIRCUIT COURT. . -v-. ...
: Coram Smith J.

° . •■ '\ ■ No.896. ' '

■' ■Bonjamindal.y^.Clarkiidivir. , "^ Tr

a«,-n "*«"*^ APTHOBIZATION. •:.

entered inCb. it was agreed bet.ee„\ eVell^^rr T'T* ^'^^'^"^'^

sepjw,tely enjoy, manage and administer ^3'"^ l^ '" ' "^ *'''™ '''"'"'^

■nd responsible separately each for firLd ../,': P™^'''^' '"'^ ^ "^ble

. that pji^pose fully autl/oriLgts slid vif! f1^ T.. f '7^'"' ^"'^ ^"«^«"^ ^^^

quemly was indebted to the £tiff1„^ ^''"^ ^^« ^«^«"J«»t, Clarke, subse

and delivered by them to her^S sum sheT^ ^'' ''' ^^ ''' ^^^^ '^^16,

The defendant's (Clarke's) firs nl!r * , '"""''''^ *° P«y-

be^nsoldtoherhuL:d'::L':Uotji;; rnJthaltV'"^ ''^'^^''^
It was agreed that ho should bear all houlJ^f ^ her raar/mge contract

sought to be recovered formed a portior^''^^^^^^^^ """''^ *^« «-«"»t
The general issue followed.

The action canno^rmSnSL^'ordrtrt,"^^^^^^^^^^ of her h'usbaud.
W, that a married woman cannot^'d hfrl,f ' .T ^^"r" P"""P'« ^^ ^"'
t.o„ of her husband. This princLle wl^r T , "*. "'' '""^'"^ ^^'^<^"^^-
July, 1846, f„ the case of dTrouv llirnl;i ^i "'' ''^"' °''^PP-'« '"

Bauk, Midland District, responden^-l IJ"' Tl*"'^ ""'^ ^''^ ^«»™-«^«l
K« the defendant has not by te7L! u ^'«'''"''°"' *«« ""^ ^eq-;

action is dismissed without costs ^ '^'"""^ ™"«^ *•»" «l>J«etion. the

■g. i)gt>«B, for plaintift. Action dismissed.

Jfo«* I* Jf^cTM^ for defendants. /

f -Ju'i'.

C.W.T.)

/

:^.-;y:

V

122

i'--J

SUPERIOR COURT, 1859.

«.<

MOXTREAL, 18T MARCH, 1880,

Coram Smith, J.

;, No, 1651. '

*~~ Sell V. Rirjneyet.al^ and Milne, Opposant. .

jyjjfciAL BALE-^P08S£SSION — PKOPRIETOK8IIIP.

Held,— l»t. Tlint where ioods arc bought at a Judicial sale no delivery is necesfary to pam the pro-
perty, f

«nd. That tacitf reconductinn In rc'atlon to moveables only arises when tho IcJsor Is a dealer and

makes a bnstm'SN or letting movcnblfs. • j

8rd. That imrties rcmai^iiug in possession after expiry of lease, will be deemed toliold them asowners

In tliis case m alias writ of execution issuc-l against the goods and chattels of
the dt-fendanls, under wliipli a seizure was made. The opposant by an opposi-
tion AJin de distrain chiiined a portion of the goods seized, as having acquired
them umlor a forncr writ of execution against the i^efendants, alleging that at
the time lie acquired them, the Ist of April, 1854,' he made a lease of them to
the defendiint, who remained in possession for two years, the term of the lease,
and afterwards to the time of seizure, in virtue of the same which was continued
by tacite recouduction. The oppositidn being contested was dismissed.

SjirTH, J. — The opposant pandiased the goods heclaims at a judibial sale, the
law presumes delivery ai|d no diplacement oi the goods was necessary. At the
time of Pale thekj)ppo8»^ leased the goods to the defendant for the term of two
years, .which termSvas iyi^in April, 18**, but he claims that the lease was con-
tinued by tacite reconduction. The only question then here is, can the lease be
ext-ndeil to an indefinite pciiou^oas to defeat the presumption of law arising
from the defendant's possesion that lie is proprietor. ' .

There is no doubt that tacite reconduction exists in favor of landlord in refer- -
ence to leases of real property, but it is only extended to moveables in one case,
that is where tJM^ party is in the habit of letting moveables. Wc find this doc-
trine in various authors. Potbier gives some examples, Louage, Nos. 37D-371.
citing the ^e of the Tapissier, who ''lets for the purpose of furnishing an
apartment, 4 Duvergier, No. 234 and seq. In the present case, tlie opposant
not being in the habit of letting, there can have been^ife) tacite reconduction.
The lease then expired id 185G, and as defendant remained in possession, and
as nothing to the contrary is shiwn by ijip opposant, the goods must be held to
be (he defendant. Possession vaut titre. The opposition is dismissed.
' i/c^«y «& ^Ms/tii, for opposant.

-d. <fc IT. ^oierteon- for plaintiff contcstinff. , ^

(H.B.) "^ .^

^ • HONTBBAL. SlST MABOH, }85«. r

Coram SuiTHf J.

No. tSOl. " ■ " -J.

Pearee vs. The Mayor, Aldermen and Citizmto^m Oily of Mmtf$tl.

NO LIEN ON PIANO FOR RENT OP CONCERT ROOM. ^

Held,— Thai the ^«»aoT of a cinncert room hai no Hen on a piano temporarily phwied ihere tor an even-

ting concert; ~fortEi
of the room.

neleiwe

■V-

t

SUPERIOR COURT, i860.

City cineert Hall Ihlri ^^' f*'^. '!* ^^^^ tcm,,orHnly deposited in the

The conclusion <itt dtl I LnT '"".''' *° ''^ ''"""^^ ^^ ^^^ «y-

n.rtjer should pit^lSrZ;;;^'^"'^"' -"^ ^""^ ^'^ ''«^"^-^

-r:i;::s'L^:::^]:e^ had ie„sed u.

a sum of £10. to on. Sliarl^ S 'wT' k . r™'" '"* '''' «"« '^^--ff ^^^
lcne,v nothing of the Plain Uff fn 1 ! '^ P'"""' '''^ P''*"" ^''^••«' *»»»» they
«nd privilege^,non thfp^ro fo^ . ""*":' ""^ '^'*' "'^ ''«''«"*'''"»« '"^d a lien

on t SSr ^" ^^^- ^^- -^ ^- ^- -d were heard

privilege of laridfords I !r "^ t."''*"''""' *"*^«'"g *'"»^ "'«yl'«-« the

fiivour of theSainS; "^"'"* *^'' pret^asion^nd give ju^ment in

The judgment was recorded as follows: ' \ . ' ' X' ""^

The Court, &0.&C.. ^ \

ConsideriDg that the sairTnUJn.jff k li ,* '.V" "•••'•• "^^ ••»

hissaid Jon,an7th^ hett '''"^'"'''•^ *^« ™'''«"«' «"''g««on of

And further conside it ha Uh 7^^^^^^^ ^' '''' P'«"« -'-<» '» tlfi, cause,
establish in law. any rii^oft-; "'*"'' ''^'^ ^""^^ ^° "«'"♦-" and

the exception i^t^^^Laii^:^^^^^ T"" ^ ^'^ P'*"° «» -* f«"h. l>y
payment of the sum due and owin.7 .? * -f l'" ^^" ^''^ ^^ ?'-« ^^ *»"«
plea. AndconsideringlwheXtl sIT ,^""^^^ *" *^« -^

detention of the piano aftenLlI-fir ^ '""*'^' ''^ """°° "^ ^^^ »'«g«I
plaintiff hath suCd da«le to ^^ " *<> d^l-er wj| the same to the sfid

the Province of Sda. ^ C u^t^dT* "' ^\ ''^' ''' ^""^"^ "^-^ o^
costs, and doth condemn the said 7r f overrule the said exception with
judgment, to rlToL a"d JeH e^unt ".^ "'*'" *' '"^^ *'*«•• ««'^'- <>' '^^
defa.lt of so doing wSltesai^Vsdr.'""^ "" *'' ""' P''^'"*'«'' '''' '»
'this respect the sum of £150 ' f ^ ' ^"^ "' """^ ^''ii^" damages in

detention, and costs ^2 J v . I" t""^'' ^^ '"^^ t*« ««!d "'egal
' the said Plaintiff. ^"''"''* *^ ^'•- ^^ «• Holmes the Attorney for

«■ /

Pwirw
The Mivw,

,<r. ->i.

W.B. mimeg, for Plaintifll
J.Papin, for Defendants.

(F.W.T.)

Judgment for Plaintiff.

T. gyai»gfr rtyg

»». «t 1^1, a T.. CJaxMaaFt and Jrwwr

-> fl. 0., Montreal; So. 2655 • A D laL "^"'^'"'"^a^^t «
^ . w. -ooo , A.U,, 1854. Law Beporter, p. 83,

s

V '

124

COUR SUPERIEDRE, mo.

I , ' MONTREAL, 28 FEVBIER, t850.

Coram Smith, J.

JfiJ. 8482. '

Boudreau ct ah vs. Damour , ' *

COMPOSITIOK OU ATERMOIEMENT.
Jug«, Qu'Au actc de romponlion o« atcrmoiomcnt n'«^ pas rtgolu, ftiuto dii paComent, dana les ddlaih
HipuKs, si la cnSaueior a cousoiitt * alWrer I'acte do composition, sona I'aisoAtimont du diSbitoiw
, quiactAnpoai'.

• L'action dea Dcinand€ur8 arait poni; objet le . recouvremeiit de difiorents
billets dont les Rommcs r6unii'8 f6rinaient cello do £l82.

Par difforentes cxcejitions, le D6fendeur, plaida novatfon, d616gation et
extinction des titn-s de crAance 6n«m6rd8 duns la declaration, ces diverses
exceptions leposant snr I'expoH^ de fails qui suit: par acto d}i 6 aoiit 1856, le
Defendeur avait transporte avec gaianlio do fournir et faire valoir aux Deroan-
deurs ot k F. X. Brazcau ;— savoir aux dits Deinandcurs bi somraedo £no fis.
4d., et k F. X. Brazcau celld de £166 68. Od. formant ensemble cello de £338
128. Jd., duo et payable au dit ccdant (le Defendeur) avec plus fortes soinine*,
par difforentes person IVC9 nomm^CB dans Facte.

Ce transport eta't ainsi fait, pour par lo dk cfedant demeurer quitte enycr» '
les dits cessioftnaircs de paroille somnio do £^38 12s. Id. qu'il leur devait avec
. plus forte somnjo, par birfets et par compte coivrant liVec cclte condition que les •
,dit8 cessionnafres seraient tenus, ainsi ,qu'ils s'y obligeaient expressfeincnt, dans le
casseulemoiit et non autrement,ou lessommes transport^es leur seraient rdgiiliere-
metit payees a leur 6cli6ancc resp;;ctivo, de donnor une quittance gAndrale et
finale au dit codant du montant en ciitier do leurs croances respectives ;* mai»
^que dans le cas contraire ou les dites sommes ne leur fetaient pas regulierement "
payfees aux termes et^ do la manidre mcntionn^s au dit acte, le» dits cessioa- .
Baires auraient alora le droit d'exiger le montant en entier de leurs croances
respectives, avec int6r6t"; cetteclaose 6tantde rigueur et non cbmrainatoire. Tune
sans la.juelle le dit acte n'eut point 6t6 consenti. Toutes les Crfiancea^^umfc

rfees dans la^ declaration des^ Demandeurs 6ta!ent ant^rieures k ce transport.
Lp Defendeur prdtendait que ce transport avait 6teint tbutes les crOjuices des
Deraandeurs et que nonobstant la rigueur des termea de Taete pour tendre le
d6fi^ut do paiement, dans les d6lais specifies, fatal au D6fendei, cftdernier ayant
perdu' tout contr61e sur les d6biteursd6leg'i6s, il ne pouvai'titre sournis 16gale-,"
ment qu'4 I'obligation de fournir et faire valoir. Le Defendeur all6guait qu'il
n'avait jamais 6te notifife du defaut de paiement de la part d'juicun des ddbiteui^ '
d616gu63 et que ces debiteurs eux-memes n'avaient jamais ete mis eri demeure do
payer. ^ ' ,,

Par une exception de paiement le Defendeur alleguait que les' Domandeurs
avaient rc^us des debiteurs del6gu6» au-del4 de la somme traosportee, savoir
celle de £199 Ss. lOjd. ^ _ , " : _ /

Par une dernidre exception le^ifendenr alleguait qiie les Demandeur*
avaient fait leur personnelle affaire des crfiances i eux c6d6e8. efc avaient donn6
f^*f't.^'"° des debiteurs Id6l6gu68 ponr le dernier paiement (£2&) qui leor '
Ataii djk sur lu irausport et que par 16 fAlt du <|6Iai donni aa dit d*bitenr, les

'*,

*•

I'

'--> ^T ;r^«afp:$;^^ '

■ "^~--

OOUR 8UPERIEURE, 1850.

12»

^rea de er^anccs

Demnndeure avait perdu le droit de rentrer en posseasion denJitr
distant lors du transport /HR

Lea Domandew r6pondirent k ces (jiceptiona qu'ila avaient en eflfet recu dea
dAbiienraleaaommea mentionn^ea en I'exception de paiement mala qp'ayant
. partag6ce qu'ila avaient per^u avec leur co-ceaaionnaire Braieau, ila n'avaient
paa 6t6 payia de leur proportion ; qne la ddcharge du D6feifdeur 6tait aujette k la
condition dn palemeat^^^gulier dea crAancea d6l6gn6ea et que I'une de ces*
crdance.^ n ayant paa^ pay6e dana le d61ai |p6cifi6 au thinaport, lea Deman-
deu«n6ta.entp.8tenua A libirer le Dfifondeur et qne la etipulatlon do le
libirer ^tait devenue aana effet et d'aucune valeur. Les Demandeura niaient
avoir fiiit leur affaire peraonnelle dea cr^ances c6d6es et avoit donn6 d61ai aux
ddut^rs d6l6gu6a.

^ preuve du Dfifendeur 6tablit que lea Demandenra ont re^ju la somme de
*i»9 8a. lOid. et celle dea Demandeurs 6tablit 6galement qu'ila ont parta26
ave<; leur co-ceasionnaire Brazeau.

Un dernier paiement de £26 n'avait pas 6t6 pay6 au d6lai stipule par I'un
desd6biteurad61^gu68. Le-JJifendeurprouvapar 6crit que-ce mAme d6biteur
avait «a ddlai de Brazeau pour un^paiement antirieur.ai,? dernier, ^t il prbuva
par un t^mom que ce mftmo d^biteur avait eu d61ai de 1> part dea Demandeurs
pour ]p dernier paiemeht de ;e2yet qu'il (le dibiteur ;l6l6gu6) avait offort la
aomme aux Dewindeurs avant l'ext,ifation du d^lai Jil avait obtenu d'enx.

La preuve fa,te par ce t6nioiij eat contredite par> t6moin dea Demandeurs,
etil y avait lieu & peser la valeur de cette preuve.

fi^n, ponr lea Demandeure, pr6tendit k l'argument,^e le difatrtide paie-
ment dans les d61ais apficiBia 6tait fatal A la liberation promiae et reridait
Ucte nul. nonobstant la modification i„tro<lmte dans'cetacte decomposition

par le transport ; que I'engagement personnel du DAfendeur, de voir au paiement
r6gul.erdeacr6anoes diWgu^es maintenait dana toute sa force, le principe
aur^ueljeposenl ,e8_ac.%dft.^^

,^irTo.qn,ren^tl'actenul,faute de paiement au torme convenu; 3le
d61ai donne par ^an ne ponvait 6tre oppoafi aux Demandeura, dont lea droits
itaientdifltiBctedecenxdelcur co-ceaeionnaire; que la preuve du delai prtten-
du donn6 par lea Demandeurs 6tait d6truite par une preuve contraire et que de
plus la pwuve teatimoniale ne pouvait ^tre admise pour prouver ce d61ai, vu
que c6tait prouver par temoin outfe et k I'encontre d'une preuve authentique, '
wvoir, le tranaport notarifi qui stipulait les d^lais dans leaquels les d6biteuw
del^is devaii pay^. ^ ^ ^\ ■f '

Doutre, pour le D^nde^tTVSpoBdit qne les parties k nn acte, riialgrileniB
atipulationa reapectiv^, devkient 6tre rame'n^ea, loraqu'ellea ae ptfilntaient
devant 1^ tnbunaux dina lefr^limitea et eoaa I'empire dea regies particulieres A
1 espfice decontrat^u, ^min^ dans Tacte ; <,ue de mAme qu'une vente, appel6e -

Boiulreku

vt,
Daiuuur.

;a

. r o-Jti<m wjffisssire Wcondffionnelle, e6

trouvaift en conflitavec Engagement personnel contenn dans la stipulation de
oulUt^de 1 acte, fiiu^ de paiement par les d^biteun d6l«gu68, il fallait didder

b «

1S6-

BoudrMo

COUR SUPEniEURE, 18«9.

Dainour

*■'

ir

f

^

' "ditr r'"' ?• ""^r "' "'•'' '^"'^^^ p»y* •''*»* ''^^p''"*-™ do. torses

. de paiement ; quo la .tipulation do „ftllit6 de J'acto, fauto do paioment r-J*uUor

quilobhgnfon acc««oiro do >fournir et.faira valpir; que les crt.„co8d616-

Brazcau do namAro k I.or ancun dos dAbiteurs A' I'un de« cT6aucier» d616gu«8-
p u.6t qu A autro, le ddlai do„n6 par Bra^eau. poiivait 6trj v«lat»Iea,ont opLd
auxDemandeurs; que d'ai Hour, lo D6fe«dour av^'t prouv6 que le. oUn-

tesli«k.n.ale do ce d*l« avait 6t6 vaIabIo«,e„t admi«e, vu qu'olle avait eu Hoa
„ mat,oro co.nmercmlo et qu'elle 6tHit faite, non parf 4" I'encontro d'un acte
.„ be„t.quo ^t cvd. mais qu'olle 6tHbliss«it le mode d'extinction qui a„6ant.V
.a,t C8 causes d'acfon mentionu^6s dan. la declaration, .avoir ; billeU ct
oomptes do commerce. t « v*

^ Le jugcmont.afflrme le. princip6s 6ii,!. daj.. la do^niire exception»comme on
pout le vcr par ceux de. con.id^rant. du jugeoient qui .uivent. .avoir.: , '

tb„ ^,r1'""^ * /' !''" "^'^ ^'^"''''*"' ''"*'' established by .ufficient evidence
the allegafon. «3t forth m bi.exc^ption to th^,. action fourthly pleaded, &c. Jkc'

fs l"? T'^«""Sr,th«t iu becoming thu. proprietor, of the .aid debt, .o
as rgned over, the sa.d Pla.nUff. «„d Ae said Brazeau we,re bound in law. by
force of the reciprocal delegation assumed, by the «,id Plaintiff, and the laid

legal obI,gatK,„s, assumed by them at the time the .aid tra„£^J«de,-
^^h couldhave Ufe effect of 4imi««hing^nrord-eTeltbglhe"S which
-^^^f^-^-^Wto clftim the final dischai^se .tipulated to boUen. by '

in Tr TT r\ ^''« -'^ J^-^'*" to't''« -iJ Uefondant. under tl^expr^
.t.pdat.on. of the^.d acte de tran.port. And further considering thl by law
and by the legal effect of the «.id transport, the .said Plaintiff, and/the «,id
Brazeauweregarantsofeachot1.er'.act.in enforcing .payment of the debt,
jo-ntly assigned over to them ; And further considering that it i. e.t«bli8hed by
eyidence that the sa.d Brazeau did give and grant delay of payment to one of
the debtor. who.e debt wj. a*.igned over a. .tated in the said acte of tran.fer,
by reason of wh.ch. and by law the condition ..ipulated in the S'-id acte of
transfer became of no e^ect in law to bar or destroy the right of the .aid
,DJ„ ant to plead the discharge of «|, th. pre-existi'g liabi£ of he L'd .
Defendant toward, the said Plaintiff ; and further considering that the .urn of
money now sought tow recovered in and by the prcent acLn t . thoTeby

Courr'JS"':^"';' ""^"'^^•'' '" ^'''"« °^ ^'^^ -^ -'« of Transfer the
JCLTT^'f '''''*"'"' P'''^'^^^ '^' «*'<^ Dofondalt and ioth ::^
dianiw the action of the Mid Plaintiff, with oipsts:'' " .

Cherrier, Dorvm and Dorum, for plaintfff.. ' '^"*'*"' l^^?"^^*'

I>outre, D(»iuat and Uputre. for defendant.

=e*5r

r^^^j^T^i^^r". ■/

;.y^^. •■

COURT OF SESSION, 1859.

127"

^ ■ COUET OF SESSION. pUTEB-IIOITSB. EDINBUEOH. «,.» FEBEUAEt. ,«,.

• ^ CWi»» Lord Ardmiilan.
l^'^ff»»on \tt. Pmo and otherp.

D<)MICait— SCOTLAND OR JAMAICA. - "

Jamaica he marS a ScoL ,i ^'''Ti *?"'• ®°"*' ^^^ ^«f-« '«-iP«

with whorn/: ": i L rrh^iLv' '^f '^^""'t ^r"" «* ^"''''' '^^^

th. marri^e Ae was re i^cnt in V ^" «cq«ai„t/ce. At the date of

he left Jamaica, intending to.retm. t^S nil '"*T"°"'''?f A«g»«^ ^864,
With this riew he had Pi^villv " "^ .f ^ k^^^^ ^y ^^' ''fe- '

all his household fu|nitur7Zk and ot ^"^^ ««d ""W off and realised .
had lived Ibntinuous Iv ir • . ^'"T^ ^""^"^^ '" Jamaica. ' Hi

^ betwixt L'^ZTss, b« hrirz'fol'oT 'rr '"^-^ ^'^^ ^^

intention of returnine and aftlrM • X^ f ''*' '*"«' ^^^ *"»»o»t «ny

^

IM

COpmOt SESSION, 1880.

^IN

J-

rf.ore on tho 1 2 th of fh.t month, after .ix day.' illno-. He W«« «,rvived by W.
w^fo, bul he left no of Id ; and \m ,>«r.onal pmperty, tberoforo, foil to be divided
b«^ween h.s w.dow a«d hm next of kin. At hi. death he left per«,nal property
inTS ?'"''"'■•''"'' ^" addition -fte po«,o.|K,d heritable Jrojerty

In the action it ,»^. maintained, on the one hand, that the «ucce«,ion to tho
F«ona property fell to be regulated by the law of Jamaica, and therefore that
the n«xt of k,„ by the mother wore entitled to .uccocd as woU a. the next of
km by the futhor, a. al.o that .uch of the next of kin by the fMher a. were
bc,r« m lK,..tage were entitiod to .uceee<| without collating the heriUgo; while,
on the other hand, it wi. maintained. that tho .ucceH.ion fell to bo rtgulated by
^e law of Scotland -and therefore that the next of kin by tho mother were
excluded, and that he.rs in horiUge must collate if they.s^ught to participate in

tooVr" 'T •''• /"' ^"'"""•'" <^^''""^)' ''''^' '""S^honed Jebate,
and notoH ^ ""'"f ^'""- ^' ^"^ ■"** P^""""":''^'' '^' f°"«''-« Interlocutor

EmNBCBol, 23dmruary, 1850.-The Lord Ordinary having heard counsel
for the part.es, an4 made avizandum, and cohsiderld the clold record Id
Mrhole proces-s: Find^that at thedate of the death of .the-deeea,«™F.Tef^r
#0nj^ dorn,c.lo_W5^^ K«

-J^^srbe rogulat^^^ the law of Scotland; repels the cond,scende„Te
and clam for Jamc^ J,t.hie ; and sustainathe claims of John anc^Amlrew Pow!
and of Joan R.tclne, Jane or Jean Ritchie or Traquair, William Ritchie, Thomas
fi.tch,e Adam Campbell. a«d Thomas Pow. as the next of kin according to the
law of Scotland, e^ch to an equal share to the fund in medio, but.ubject in the
case of the cimmants John and Andrew Pow, to the condition that they shall
collate their shares of the heritage of the deceased ; ranks and prefers the said
claimants, and decerns in the' preference and against the holder of the fund
.nmerfjo accordingly : Finds, in the circumsUnces of this case, all the parties
entitled to their expenses out of the fund in «».a,o j^allows accounts thereof to
be lodged, and remits tho sume to the auditor to tax and report.

(Signed) Jambs Cbacstbd.

NoTE.-The facte of this o<^e appear in. the minut^ for the parties, and tha
correspondence in process. \ - ' ' '

^Scotland was the original domicile of Mr. Ferguson. It was the country of
his father his birth, and education ; of his first engagement in business; and his
residence for the first thirty-six years of his life, and it was quitted for Jamaica
m 1839, parUy with a view of getting a situation or embarking in businesa,
and partly, and it rather appears chiefly, on account of tho state of his health
and in the hope of regaining health by change of air and residence in a milder
climate. This is a domicile of the most clear and dciiided character, such as
would easily revert, and of which, when taken in connection with the home

y^^""^ "'""'■'T*' '"^ ^^ "^'"^ "°^ ^P" "^ returnrneve>»,lihnn..h^,
ilie rwmuipuon may b6 naturally and eaaUy inferred. -if. ^'"'r ■"'""'•

i\

COURT OF SESSION, t6b9

lfi»

#l'Mr. FerguBon died in MHrch, 1884, whtle residing and carrying on
buBiU^f^W Jamaica, wl.oro he h^^od, and toiled, and prospered for nearly
fiftei| yjans the Lord Ordinary i. of opii.ion'fhal his domicile would have then
beeiKH JamaicH, though oven on till, point the fact that he loft Scotland not

I!" lis*" J^/;^'"' u 'i*" '^f '""• '"'^ "' ""**""* "«*' '"^l ^'•i^fly «" ««°8"«t of bia
rrr^:^ ""** ''« H»*ntly and strongly expressed his intention of returnL
tj,h4.rfai.ve country, and had even fl«ed the time for Soing so, distinguinh^i
ho case ^om any o those in the books, and creates some degree ofdiiculty.
« l^tMdul not die while resident, in Jatnaica. • ^

• ' fl/u'*^ ^T"^' "?** i"'^'"'^ "°* *''*P"'*''' '^^ Mr. Ferguson did in Augusty 1854.
firfalJy and completely quit Jamaica, sevefbg all ties w,hich united him to that
country, realm.ng his estate, transferring the seat of his fortunes, embarkinir
with h.8 w,fe, without intention of returning tp. Jamaica, and finally abandoning
*is West Indian domicile. He died in AmorIcA jn Sepleniber, 1865.

It has been argued, that ihi^ complete abandonment of the West Indian

domicile would of itself, and without any intention of returning to Scotland, be

sufficient to revive or restore Jhe^cotti^h domtcl^ but the Lord Ordinari is

- S frr^ '*'*''*.^''^*** *'"' "•■«"•"«"*• "« '^^ that if Mr. Ferguson

11 f I rrrrj \S V"''"''''" "^ ■^"""^ '" ^™«^« or elsewtere than in
Scotland, but had died before reaching America or the other ,.lace of settlement,
his ongina S^othsR domicile could not be held .as revived^;„o/acto, by the
more act of quitting Jamaica. To h«ld the Scottish domicile as revived under
such circumstances would be to exelude both the elements of fact and intention,
afld to eustam a domicile which the decea^d'had acquired or recovered neithe;
facto nor antmo. But in this caso the deliberate ai.d settled intention on the
part of Mr. Ferguson of returning permanently to Scotland is as well establisho.1
as his intention permanently to quit Jamaica. Both are beyond all doubt. It
was for the purpose of returning to his native country and'to reside there that
he quitted J jmaica; and this it is, this clear and decided purpose, coupled with
the fact of abandbnment, which is the peculiar feature of the case.
It appear;^ to have been held, by some at least of the authorities in the Biiman

(t^g. Lb. 30 Tit. 1, L. 27, § 2). But there iT, no authority in our law for the
proposition that a person can be nne domicilio, and it has notibeen pleaded that
Mr. Ferguson had no domicile. Then it is not contended, and could not with
any hope of ,uc|ess be maintained, that Mr. Ferguson died domiciled in America,
l-tat IS a view of the case which no one attempts to support The alternative
and the only alternative put by either parly is between the Jamaica domicile '
and the Scottish domicile. The point of time is the date of Mr. Ferguson',
death ,n September, 1856. At that time the Jamaica domicile had been com-
pletely and finally abandoned by Mr. Ferguson, with the intention of returning
to Scotland, and without any intention of again returning to Jamaica.^ Thi.
abandonment h«i been effected both facto et animo, and was quite complete
Md concIu«ve; and although the route was circuiLs, the deceased wa.-at the

Fergoaon

tliAra In 1,5 A • -i e '". -^y"—"' '"■'•fmtenti(>n^7>H>«rt&anentIy remainiiw

^^^ A^ ^T' * ?^'*"«^"' '" ^' *"""*'y "f ^^ ''«""y' »»« birth, hi. eduoi^
tion, and hi. indoBtnal occupation tUI the age of thirty-ait

tao

COyUT OF SESSION, ISflO.

Tho n'covery of « a<,„,lcilc of origin nn.ler .ud. clrcumMnnoc i. „.ore fHvour-
. .ly rogHnl..j| ,l,an tho aoquWtion of. new .lomidlo; h,u| .|.« ...o of . porZ
«bH.ulon,n« n. acquire,! don.icilo- .„d .l^ing .„ iuJre on hi. way hon.e " M^

way to. foreign co„n.ry with a viow to the ....ni.i.ion of . new dou ic k

llioso two canofi nmit

n.or« en«,ly revor.ed to than a now don.icile can bo acouircd.

?or a??. ' •'," """• . "" '" ""' "^ ""f*"'^" ^''"^ " P«-'» dyi"^ *« route

e a, ol , : '" Jo"rncy.„«. and thun a. don.icilod in a coul.try which
- o ho r.. 1 . "' ":' -"-'^'-'"g 'he authoriti..^ and having regard

niu«t bo viewed a« having abandoned his acquired domicile In Jamaica and
rec<tvored his original domicile in Scotland *

than W.M. diffidence ,hat tho Lord Ordinary expreL thi. opinion • but ZZ

Ztion 1 ^'^ r ^""? ' ' ""' *•'"•' "'«^° "« •^'ffl-'^- ""ending any
ita n i,lili'r "' r '""'" "'"^ ^''^ preponderance of authority and of ^
lega pnnc pie ,,1n accordance with the conclusion to which ho has come.
jn.o amhonties m favoyr of the proposition that- the domicile of origin is
more eandy recovered t an a new domicile can be ac<,uire<l (Story, sec. 4?" par.

?h ToJd Adv ' : "' ^"•^'^ ''*'' ^"8"^*' ''^'' P- ^'d Cotteuham.

quesllon. " *'' '**'"" authorities which touch more closely the present

sio!i"lrn .f ^"'"l"' "^"^"'\^""*'"' '''^ '^'""""•y' 1800(.«.oc.s«cces-
hol?'^* t v' *»"^* '°".«'' *^ *''« ''o™i"i'« of a Scotchman dying on bis way
starJr T'" T ^•^"•^* *'"^ ^''"'^* -- raised under circum! •

rrorlT^ f'^^y"™ t'**?"-"*, and the decision was in favour of
llnl .1T'° '• ^'- ^"^80 quo.es this decision as an authority for the
proposition, that a perso,, quitting an acquired domicile, and dying in transitu
foahe original domicile must be held as having recovered that original domi-
cle (1 Burge p. 36). Story sUtes the same proposition in the dearest terms :
~ If, says he, a map has acquired a new domicile different from that of his
S2 • ^ '"'T " i'..*""* «n-inte«ti^„ to resume his native domicile,-
helatter ,. acquired even while he i. on his \ay in ilinere, fqr it reverts upon
the moment the other s given up" (Story, 47)AAnd again' i'another pass^

17 ^^T'' *'^r ^ ""*'""" "'•"'^'" ««^"'''^d in a foreign countryr
r^idence changes when the party has left the ci,u„try ««mo „o« revetUnUi;-

cSe lt«'^ VT' '"!'^ """'^^ '*'""*^y' ""'^ '^'' '"*«"' h« »««'« ^-«^-

!1 Vr. 4tL^ ';°"«^.^"- \ .P- '^) ^'P;^" »>i"^'f to the same effect;

fcoW--} !p^

r

COURT OF SESSION, 18fi9.

-^

4ai

rate paiuuigo on the Mm* lubjcct (.p. 104) h« repcaU the <loctrin«, und
refer, to tlio authority of LonI 8tow.ll; an.l in iht, opinion of Sir John
Loach, m Munro v. Donglaa (5 Ma.1., pngo 870), an.l that of f^ir.l Chan-
cellor Coftcnhatn. in MunY f. Mnnro (I Uoh., IIoum of Lord. Cnac., 006),
mny bo found in •ubstnncoJnn ftloption of the Mine rulo. It W not npccwary
^ to carry tho dictum of Sir John Loaoh, which i« not 'very prooinoly cxpro««d
■p far a> to hoKI th^ a party may havo acjuired a new domicile of choice If
' he dies tnitimrt toward that now domi.ilo. It does not appear to the Lord
Onlinary that the learned Judge inten.lod ..o to oxpro«R himnclf, an.l tho deel-
«ion in^tl.o cauRe which ho wh« then considering .lid not require the utafement,
and woul.l «cni;coly have boon consi^tont with the expremion of any Mich view
Dut the rulo that a,^por«on finally quitting an^ acquired domicile and dying <»
Mintrt io his original domi.ilo has thuH rocovorcd his original domicile ia
stated by Sir m^ Leach, and is quite consistent with the judgment in Munro
V. Douglas, AnflUn Munro v. Munro, and issupporto.1 ^IH^ high authority of
Mr. Htory and Mr. Burgo, an.l the case of Cbl^le., The^'recent cases of Cnjltrell
V. Cockrell, 14th July, 1856, (Lav, Journal^^T^-^Y.ni'^^. 730.) ^The
Attorney-floncral t-. Fitzgerald, !Wd July 1766 (same vol., p. rb), and Lyall
J. Paton, 1st August 1850 (same vol. p. 746), all decided by Vice-Chancellor
Kmdersl^^ are-a« judgments, and looking tp the terms of the decisions pro-
nounced^ot at all opposed to Ui^do now \advorfcd to. The ppi«t is not •
deeded, and .did not require to be deoi.led, in aW of these cases. Some of the
oWervat.on8 of tho learned Vico-Chan.,ollor .lo a\flrst mght eee.n in opposition to
those of Sir John Leach\- but the exp!anati.,n ajUars to be that the opinion of
Sir John Leach was su^posod by Sir Vice Clmnc^llor Kindersl^y^to go farther
than it really did. When Sir John Loach's opiniok js considered as applicable
tothecnseof aporsoi»wturning from a foreign o\untry to the domicile .of
ongm, and dying mUntrt to^that original d.,micile, t\ere is nothing in it oppo.-
ed to any of the authorities mentioned by Vice-Chancellor /findcrsley, or even
opposed to his own decisions in these cases of CockrelK Fitzgerald, and Lyall "
in 1856. A .

No Scottish authority has been adduced to support' theVamaica domicile In
the proHcnt case, and no English .authority directly in poin\ has been quoted,
while tho maxims of some of the learned civilians, th<>J«4iUonal authorities
of Story and Burge, and Phillimore, the remark of Lord Sto\ell in the case of
the Harmony, and the observation of Sir John Leach in MuWo I Dourfaa.
support the Scottish domicile. ' \

i^.^rj^7^' 'h^^Lord Ordinaiy ia, on the wlole matter, of o^ion th,»t at
ILovered ^^^^^ '•'''*'"'''"* '*^°"^" '" ScotlanVhad beea

Counselfor daimante foundling on the law of Jamaica-Mr. A. S. Cook and
Mr. Hill. Agenti— Messrs. W. A J. Cook, W.S.

.n!?r'i' t' HT*'/°"'^'"» °" *•*' ^^^ °f Scotland-the Solicitor-Genetal
and Mr. A.,B. Sfa^d. ^gent^^Mr. William Duncan. S.8.€

PtTRUMA
VS.

h>w.

\

,IiSi»

"Unr

( '

^:-

t '

*1

182

SUl'EttlOR COURT, 18a0.

f^

7

y

MONTRIAU Tth MAHCH. IDM.
Coram 0. Momdklrt, J.

^ [Mqoiri MTTUOM.)

No. in.
Scott It at. VB. Seott tl a/."'^

BWqPITIM-oAPPRAL ruOM irrKHLOOUTO*.

"*'ir.''!"i ""T^'.'T •» *-'"''« >" • «•"•«'. will b* mH>m,M to en.l>t« • n,rtr >pik«II„. IV«m

«. nt..rl.H«t..r, J..d,m...i. U> ...pl, to Ih. Court of A,.,h^ ft., tho »iuj^ !f •?" iTrCJ

^ which ha hu Rivnn notion lo the othw ilda. " ^

Ap|.li(,Htion wn» ma.f« ih tliii c«u«« on bolialf of iho defon,I«nt for an a.lji)urn- •
ment of the A'm/w^/r, un.lor tho following <ir«iiin.(8«im During the prnviout
term of court, a law h.-aring h<ul taken |.Im« on a Ji/»n,e en droit to tho i.laiu-
tttf • declarnlion i.nd an.won» in law to two of the at-foii.lanf. ploan. A ju,l«w
in«..t hn,| Won fondorod di^miwing tho <{i/e,u0 en droit and ordering vreuve

Br'/"*' «'''■"'' "" *'" *""*"""• ^'**- ''■'•« F'lHiruiff inHorihodthocauHoon the
JiOfe de, Snq„ite$, and on the ••anie day the defendant* gave notice of «n aimli-
cation to the Queen'. Bench for tho allowance of an appeal from tho inU.rl«ca-
tory judgnunt m rendered on the law hearing. On the Ut of March no Court
of Queon'H Ucnch was held, In con»o<pience of a division of opinion of the
Udgej, M to whether there wa« a quorum of compelent ju.lgo. of th.it court-
jthe defendant* lodged their motion with the clerk of tho court as directed in
Buch caHes by the Judicature Act of 1857, «n.l now protluced a certilicato of
the clerk of the Court to that effect, certifying also, that proceedings could not
bo had thereon in conBequooce of tho decision of tho judgea that no court could

The defen<lant. now urged in support of their applicatfon for a postponement '
. that havng a right of appeal they had done mII the diligence in their power to
•vml thomselvo. of that right, that it was not the intention of tho law that they
Bhoulc Wdcpnval of their reln«.Iy, nor that they should incur any forfeiture
of nght, resulting from a cause over which they hi(d or could have no control
ThatthoJudicatureActof 1857, by allowing applications to bo lodged with

the benc>flt of thoir diligence, and that it woajd be a hard case, if from the fault
of the executive m delaying the nomination of a sufficient number of judges of
the higher court, tho defendants should bo deprived of their rights.
On the paj^ of the plaintiffs two points were submitted : 1st That tho iudir-

rrrTJ.?"^'"'^?^'!?'* "^ ^'"» "f*I^"'«*' ^'"•" 5 2nd. that nothingshort
oTa ruloy tho Queen's Bench granted, ordering the plaintiff, to shew cause
why_an>ppeal should not be^allowed, could have tho effect of suspending pro-

^Ja l?r, *"* ^'°* '* ^"^ •^^ 'Jetormined in the case of Ou^n, v.; Suti^^
J«d,thattUore wasno appeal from an interIocut,»y judgment dismissing •
J^«.« «i rfm/ to a declaration ; because it was susceptible of remedy by the
final judgment, which was the case in point, as the remainder of tho judgment
dflnidr.1 nothing ti^nin^t th. dofouJuuu; ii> OiJ uut disiuuu. any ii tho plea^W=

."ki

\

BUPERIOK

imall)

COURT, 1850.

th. contrary H .lIowe:i th«m t* fm.ll, «„tH Iho (Inat ju.|g„,.„t, wh,„ th. nu^

O,. tlu, «H.o«d ,K,i«t .,.0 term, of ll.ft »4tl. «,cti„« „f t|.. 0«lin.nc.. sUo
3 Up. 2, ol««r y ,„«»«t t|.«t proc«..<li„«, ...ouM „„t U .u.,.,n.|«d l„ '^
whon .,. .p,.„„ WM .«.,«,.t. until the l.iKhcr court i„t.rpoLl Z ItlZuy^,

•Itcircl ||..ttl.oJu.lg„|,„ro wh« ..oiwd of the c«u.o. «ml pro<...,,|i„. with U

...t orny of tho h.gh«r court, nn.l if w« i„..u,nl,«„t on the nartTnukiha thi
.ppllcation, M well ,o .how lh« Uw Hu.horizing the i„d«e to Lnt it «. that it
WM . ,.„per c«e for the exer..i.e of .„ch .uthtity. that «. ffrfr m I It '
M . .ufflcent reason that the ex...tlve h.<l ..g,Jt.d their duty, by not pi*
Ing for U.e cornpcteney of tho Qu..on'. Flench. ,ho iudgo by con.iderinu it Tould
.cco„»„o.l«te hi,n.elf to the convenience of tl.nt ^.uLrify of S e w«
•uppoHod .ml recognised to be Indepond.nt. That givin/ {ho judllt Z
efend,„t ..Wl for would be equivalent to making .'uwVher«' on?; o
cxK for the u.hflca|ion of tho executive, and would adopt their J.eabll^
.cU a. a r«o/... for the judg„,ent, act. for which tho plaintiffa couldt „ „o
degree re«p.n.,ble. be.ide. a. tho judgment wa. In their favoar Uhey we u for
Uje^pn.,.u presumed tobe ri«ht.a presumption which could not be fori 'til'
invoked n. favour of .ho defendant,, and aMi,ti„g them to a .upno«,d remits
under the eircum..u.ce. would bo conniving at the frustration oT^'LedrJT

MoNn...„. J -^A. to the first p.>i„t. ,t i. „ot for me to decide whethe th^
cause be appealable or not, that i. a question for the determination •! thi
Queen's «cntb,^I can have lething to do with it -

iJ" TheLerd"i/''f "V ^"'«''"""'»''« fl^^t '» - to the intention of th* ^
law. The second involveB what ,. most vital to the rules by which «,cietyj.v '
governed by our .ptem, vi.. the independence of tho Be«ch, in tlM^ unb 2npl
ed exercise of ita futjclbns. -"^ uumwrrnpj.

The law give« me no authority to postpone a cause under like ciwumlaiibe^
I cannot exer„se that authority by the law becauie it ha. not so dll^TS
although u docs not grant the power, it is not prohibitory. As to the oth r auej
.on when IJe executive violates the law In place of pividlngt t« a ImTni^ ^
t^ation as thoy are bound to do. for I do not he«Ute to «iy^at fo yea ^ t^
«ec«t,ve have cu pably violated the law, by not providing for the ffic ey t
the courts, and when parties go on with their case*, and do all in tl7e nowe/
do all they are bound to do. ar. thoy to suffer from 'this ..use. qJTJZZ
fromsuchaconclus,on. If I can aid them without violating the law I am
d j,sed to do so, but, must not save for excellent reasons, I ca^nnot suspend Te
proceedings, but can exercise a discretion, and will therefore order an adio.^
ment of the E,^uSie until the fourth Enguite day in June, by whicS time^' "
c#ortun,^ Vil, be affonied for the defendanta to make their appHcatLnTn oi^
the term of that Court be held on tho first of June, the day fixeS by lTw
CVww A Saiuniiji, fur Plaintlffi. ' . . Appligfltion gmntod. =

Carrier <&ilcrtAefo/, for Defendants, 4 ^ •

(A.OJ , . ' '

; J ,_^ . ^ ^ _ __'

, ■' - i-.: .J' - - ' • ■ ^

Tt.

J~--

f

■]

**^w

■we"

i.'- m 1

SUPERIOR COURT, 1869.

MONTBEAU mtn lUBOU, 18W.

Coram Smith, J.

: *^- .

The same cause. /

•

KNQCBTE8— JITDOK IN BANCO SUPERIOR.
"'"d^iirtsiASr"' •■" *"'"'' "-^ -^— * --rs* the ruUn, of another ,„d«« of th,

^,imnce or «ii appeal of which ho has given notice to the other ildo. ^^

■ . •^' J. -

The same arariimenta were renewed on a motion by '^^laintiffs for a rcvi-
fton of Judge MoNDELET'8 rulingat^.,Bi^z,^.4t.^jj-t„rther urged by. the
; Flaintiffs, thMt Judge Mondelet Baaadopted, asa justification foj^ his ju<wLnt
^ the very reasons he denounced in pronouncing it, there being no Qther griunds
for giving it, and those being wholly untenable in law; also, that the pretended
• exercise of a discretion was a frustration of the I'laintiffs' legal remedy, and an
arbitrary exercise of authority which the Judge had no warrant or permission
for in law.

Smith, J.-The only law whi>h applies to the case, is the ordinance of 1 785 ;
that givps an appeal from an interlocutory judgment, but the appeal mu^ be
allowed; there must be something done by the higher Court to interrupt the
proceedings here;, without that, the Judge has no authority. The 1^ says,
that an appeal may be had ^rom any interlocutory sentence or judgment in
certain cases, provided always tlmt/uch appeal shall not bo giantell and
allowed except upon motion made in the Court of Appeal for that purpose, and
a rule served upon the other partv, or his Attorney, to shew cause, &c." The
rule so served shall have the eflFe/to stay execution in such interlocutory .juda-
jnent till the determination of tfie motion in appeal. This is imperative and
binding on the Judge hero, ^here is nothing sli^w;! by which the Defendants
will lose any right, and it/i« not to be presumed. A Defeirfaiit may do many
things to interrupt and d^elay a Plaintiff's proceedings, an'd it may be Iiis inter-'
est to do so, if ho is likely to lose his case, but the Ju.Iges cannot imagine rights
for him which the law has not given. It was the intention of the Legislature
to take away or deny any such right or appeal until the order of the higher
Court was granted. The only ground for operating a spspension-of proceedings
by the ordinance, isthe granting of the rule or order of the Court to shew cause-
It is argued that the notice, under the circumstances, is equivalent to it ; but
the notice is the mere private act of the party, and an appeal may nev^r be
granted on It. . The object of the provision in the ordinance was to prevent
delays and chicane of parties requiring suspension of proceedings, under pre-
tence of mere notices of appeal. It is asked to suspend the proceedings on the
ground of a simple applicatiop to have been made to the higher Court, and its
failure for want of > Court. The Judges can take no cognizance of such rea-
sons, nor can they know anything of the causes which 'dday the efficiency of
the higher tri- Hial ; they have nothing to do with these, nor are they responsi-

-W

'> \

SUPERIOR COURT, 1869 & 1888.

198

*• . ' i» . ******

CroM and i?a«cro//, for Plaintiffs. \. Motion granted.

(7ar/ier and i?«/A*/o/, for Defendants • '

(A* 0.) .*• *

(■

■ MONTEKAl, SO DECEHBBE ISBS.'

Coram BAD0LKr,J,

, No. 1857.

Donallyn.Nagleet McDonald, O^noinrii.
*ug6, quo le gardien d'offeta Misia n'» ■■■«•»• i^tA^t „* *

U prcmWre wigio. "^ *""* •"**»'^«" durant U o^fjjptatloii aoufev^e sur

Los effots mobiliere du D^fendeur avaiAnt At^ B«;oi. Li
No^OS . .a Conr SnpWe. I ^:t::^^ZZ;.^
De.a„deurengaranne.n,aditedorni.roc^^^^^

La vente sur cejte saisie fut snapendde par uno opposition afin d'annuller
Durant la contestation de cett. opposition, le DemVndeur fit J^isir ^ 1L^
ffeu e „„ autre gardien fut appoints 4 cette seconde s^isie le 10 Ulet is^
L^ 21 ju,llet 1858, le gardien McDonald produisit uneo^posiUon VnltuZ
k\ encontre de cette seconde saisie dans laqueile il relataiUes fait, .i 1"""""" ,
.l%uant que par ^ loi il 6t«it tenu 4 la representa b„ de TJI^^Z' *'
corps et par laqueile il concluait k Ja nullit6 de la secoLe ^ie^H . / "'
qu'H fut ordon„6 que vft la d6no„ciation par Ini faTe de «« auali!l / ^'"'5""
^ proc.d.s en ,a canse actu..le fussent s4end J; ^s;^^^
position en la cause portant No. 1998 dan. laqueile U atait '^1^^ ^ ^
d.en, ou au moins usqu'i ^ue notification de la saisie en cette LT! ^

de la gatde des effets saisis. et jusqu'i ce que des precedes ultfrieul tZ
ordonn6s par la cour, le tout avec depens. '«neur8 tussent

- Cette opposi.ion fut contest6e par le Dema»Heur au moyefi d'une defense en
dr6it sur le pnncipe, que le fait d'une saisie antferieure dans Iaon«n! m
avait 6t6 nonin.6 gardieu des m.^es effets. n^..^::J^:':^ll^^'^^l

posa„t.pourl'autoriser A ret^nir possession de ces effets et k en ellh , fj
vente et quM n'avait aucan int6r6t. " ' «mpecher la

J^^r^ Z '* '**^'"'* «« fond« en droit, la cour a renvoy6 cetteoppo-
Bition. Lejugement est comme suit: J""^"^ °PPO-

^ La cour apr^s avoir entendule Demand^tir et I'Opposant par l,ur* avocatg
aur la r^ponse en droit du Demandenr A I'opposltion afiod'anLler prod^^^
^t,o ause par le dit Opposant. avoir examin* la dite opposition et leJpiry^
en ete cause e^ avoir d6Iiber6, maintient la dite r^p^^ eVdroit endS
~on ; fi,.e par le Demandenr , ,a dite opposlL a^^^:!:,

L^hm et Camay, Avocats du DemandeOf.
SicoUe et Cha^non, Avocats de I'Opposant.
f P. Bh II.)

~i!s

■.%

k-*

• V

w^

186

COUR SUPfiRIEURE, 1858 & 1850.

• .'I

WONTKBAL. 31 DBCBMBUi 1858.

Coram Smith, /J..

No. n«6.,

Frothingham v. Gilbert.

fvei, que raracndment de te dtcUnition >ur en lUre oonoorder lee tiltgui* kTeo I» preura ert tea-
Jour, pcrmis cu vertu de U 12 Vlo. clup. 89, tea. 88. lee tnia «Unt ft 1» diaorttloa do U Cour.

La d^claratlou en cette c«use alliguait IVxistence d'un bail notari6 en date
du 23 Fevrier, 1856, tandisque cebail avait et6 passA le 22 F6vrier, 1866. Le
D6fendeur avait plaid* une exception de compensation et une ddfenseau fends .
en fait. Lorede I'audition au ni6tite, leOemandeur fit motion pour amender
8aD6claration dans les termes suivante: Motion on behalf of Plaintiffs, that
' they be permitted to ^mend their declaratioikin this cause by substituting therein
for the words "third" wherever it occurs in the said declaration, the wo>d
"second ;" the whole upon the payment of such costs as this Court will order;
Cette motion fut accord6«i Saos frais par la Cour dans son jugement final qui est
comme suit: The Qourt having heard the parties by their Counsel upon the
merita of this cause, and also upon the motion of the Plantifia, to be permitted
to amend their declaration in this cause by substituting flierein for the words
« third" wherever it occurs'in the said declaration the word "second ;" having
examined the proceedings, evidence of record and deliberated, considering that
the said Plainliflfs have established by evidence the'material allegations of their
said declaration, and that the said Defendant hath failed to prove the allega-
tions of his said exception, doth dismiss the said "exception witji coste, and ad-
judging on the motion of the said Plaintiflfs to amend thej^ declaration doth
grant the said motion, and doth condemn the s^d Defendant to pay to the said
Plaintiffs, &C., &c. -

Abbott d Baker, poxxxh Demandeur. . V;

.fioMdt i/bn^, pour leD^f^ndeur.
(P.E.L.) ■ ^

HOMTBEAL, 28 FSTBIEB 1859.

Cordm Badolet, J.

* No.mi.;

LaxTonx svi. Barault ^ LinUre'.

Ju««. qu'un dlreotenr d^une compagnie eat tenn i» r«pondre Mz InterrogatobM. ear Mta et artlolfla
qui lui sont prapoa«a ooncernant les diffdrentea traaiaetiona lUtea par to bureau dedlrectiou.

Le Demandenr qui est actionnaire et un des directeurs de la compagnie da
chemin de fer de Montreal et Bytown, comme crdancier de cette compagaie
poursuivit le Demandeur pour le montant de ses actions dans cette compagnie.
Par ses defenses, Ied6fendear~all6gue que le Demandenr est non-recerable ensa
demande, vA se^ qualit^s d'actionnaire et de direotear et nomm6ment en ce que
certaines transactions du boreau de direction ont eu I'effet de ruiner le cr6dit de
la compagnie et de la foire tomber en d^uonfiture. Le Demandeur ayant bih
interrog6 Bur faits et articles toqchant ses transactiphs qui eurent lieu doraot sa
-disige^le-Tlirectenrrdpondlt qall n'en eobttafteait rien. ^

COUR SUPERIEUBE, 1S59.

:87

Le I)6fendeur fit motion le 23 f^vriAr i ana * „a TTI ~, '■

Jnterrogatoires soient tenus pour confessfis et av6r68 ' » ^e qu ,ceux

r6ptj^ r^'*''"' 'T '""''"" '"' "'^"^^^ ^ •' f"* «"J°i°t «» Demandeur de
r6pondW5 de nouvcau k cos interrogatoirea. i •"»"aeur ae

Lejugement est comme suit:

La courapres avoir entendules parties par leurs avocats mir la m«f ' j^
D^feudeur dU 23 ftvriercourant.exLi„6i%roc6dur:^^^^^^^^^^^^^
a^te mofon et en consequence ordonneauDemandeur de olpl^^^^^^^^^

qtatori^MT'"!'"''"'' «7.au«lri^a.e, buiti^me. onzi^me, treizicme et

v««T^^^T,nc< ifcrwre, pour le Demandeur.

ia/rc»aye e< Poptii, poui^le D6fendeur. - *

(P. &. ifc) '' '

laoroii

v».
Pemuilt.

" lit

^ MONTREAL, 86 FEVRIEB 1859.

^oram Badqlkv, J. -

•,i, ■ ' 'NftlOO •■.,*•■■

. Sarault VB. Ellice. ;

* une demande et ne sont pas kicompatibles ui contradictoirai. ~-"wi«in» oppoMM

Le D^fendeur ayant invoqu6 par sa premiere exception la prescription trente-

naire; plaida en second lieu une exception de paiement, tout en niaittles all6.ru6«

de la declaration du Demandeur et en dernier lieu, il plaida une defense" au

fondsen fait. '

Le Demandear fit m6tion le 25 f6vrier 1859, k ce que le D6fendeur fut tenu
defaire option entre ses defenses aflSrmatives et sa defense au fonds en faif et
qu'A defaut de ce faire,il demanda le wjet des trois defenses.

La cour apr^s audition a rejete cette motion avec depens et le jugement est
motive comme suit: " Considering that by Jaw and th^ existing jurisprudence
of Lower Canada the affirmative plea of payment and the plea of general issue
may be pleaded together in the same action, and that the said Defendant is not
in law held to make his option of one of the said pleas and to abandon the other
of them, &c., &c.

. _, '. Vw \' Motion renvoyee.

- - f iggMng^-ymrJe-Demandeur. ^

J2(C>«e «t J/on&, pour le Detendeur. ^^ "I

%v !>

138

OpXJR SUPERIEURE, 1860.

\ ■

■ —■ : — =^ ^- :

MONtKEAL; M FBVEIBB 18M.

' . Coram Badqlsy, J.

- . ' No. 1628. .

' ' La c^pagnie dupritet (Feinprunt du Ititut-Canada vs. Doyle et Stanley,
'^ , . 5. Opposant.

Jugtf, q^pe oppdsltlon qniJ, pw un ~»meiidomont BUbs<*quonfdo» proctld** au'«Ho attaquo n'a pltu
. ., ftuoimo raisoii d'fttro, dolt fttro rojDjoyiSetur uno motion, m»li gan» fhUi.

' L'Opposant en cette Cause eur qui uno roglo pour folle enohdre avait 6t6
obtemie lo 24 - docembre 1868,'fit'une oppositiou^ afin, d'annujior le writ de
venditioni ej^ponas de terria sur ce que la rdglo pour la folle, enubficip avait Ui
accordeo contro lo nommo Georgfe E. Sta"nley, tandis que soft voritJiblo nom et
celui sdusUequcl il avait-acquis la propri6l6 mim en c«tle cause, est George J. ,
' Stanley., ' . ^. ' ,' , ,, *'

iu& Demaiiderosso fit motion apr6s le rrt|>poit do cetto opposition par^e shfirif, "

k ce quo ce dernier cut k araender sdn rapport en constatant que la prdpri6t6

avait 6t^ f^elleinent adjng^e iiV(jljeorge J. ^nley. Cette mfttion ayant 6t^

'. Accordee aprc's audition et le rapport du shferif ayant (6t6 amend^e on conafi- '

quencc le 23 fovrier l85D ; la Deraandorosse 'fit alor» motion comme suit f^^^^

H^i'uffautant qu'il appert par les pcoc6deS.en cette caulse etTttmendement

//ait par le sherif au rapport o'u retour par lin produit en premier lioii, que le dit

• rapport est miiin tenant correct et en acqprd avec Ics all6gu68 de Toppositlon

' produit6 par TOpposant, et quo par consfiq^uent la dite opposition n'a plus aucu^o

base; la dite o{)po3ition soit rejelfiie, avec dt>penst • .'_■' "' <

Quo do plus eft autant qu'il apport ^gale'mont par les proojidff^ on ^6tte. «au8e

que le dit Opposipt George Jp^L*pk Stanley, gqutilhommo, ^e laj cit6 de y^ont-

rfeal s'est rendu adjudicatairo.le 22 novembre dernief.d'un immeublo voftdu par

* le sh'drif sur lo Defendour pt d6crit "dans la c6dulo anne^^o au rapport du dit

.sbferif et que le dit Gworgo Josepb Stanley » depuis negUg^ do payer le prix de,

la dite adjudication ; savoir ; la somme de quinzo cent cinquanta. livres cours'

d'Palifiax;. , ■' „" , ' , . / , .-. .; " , .. : •„ ' ^1 ■ -^ ''
La cour ordonne que le dit immeub^|b«V*^tcndu de nouvteau k la folle encL^re

aux risques et frais du dit Opposant George Josei)b Staiifey k moins" que cause

lie Boit mpiitrdo au contraire devant cette cour samodi le 2fldmc jour defovrier

cour^nt,' a ilix heurcs et demie du mjjtin, cour tenartte le tout avec d6pcnS.

■" Apr^s audition des parties intSressies, la cour accarda' la motioA, et reny

I'oppositibrijmais'snns frais. ^ t ^ ,

;7b8. Popi'/i, pour la Demander^e. ■[. ■* .".':-
.Bow^, pour rOpposant. . ^, ^■

(P.B.J..) .

renyoya

4

COUR DE CIRCUIT.

SOEELv? FEVBIEB 18S9.

Coraiw Brukeau, J.

'; No. 113.

Moge Vb. pupria.

'itat6 aue ITiypotlifequn F«n6rale exlstanto sous Vancieihifeime hypoth«oalre en BathCaoMU et acquiae
AVittt a m\w enfortftdfrlfc-^^iet; Chap. 80, •» enrfgitrtfaataut attcane.inaeripHon prim gar to
tler*46tenteur } est Triable. ' -

• ' . ' Le
fpvridi

|6pOUB4

- . 8ita6 t

. ■* i cours I

Que

Quo

etvai

XI 178

's' hypotii

_ est dev<

la pasB^

g6n6W

» ment &

Butdit p

'le (jit D

, £eD

grev6 d(

^ sedait c<

Mt par

d'6chanj

, no* enr

' Harpin i

'' tembcp 1

■^^ ]^ar 6a

par le Di

cr^ancb r

Harpin 1'

Tacte do .(

copie de (

La/ren

lu^e'sous

* . \ ♦

gallon (l^«

I'espece ai

, thdquc ge

4 Vict., g

Viger V

No. 295

18fi6.

LeJHgei
Pemand«u
droit acqui

• Ld/rena^
Harcheti

1<

\.

^

'"•■i.

r^

• \'-"- W-^

eOUB DE CIRCUIT, 1889.

^__ ^^ 180

.ila4,«i,1o,ilt,g„,,,St.Our.ervr r ; . «V°""^"" '« <!• torn

':%

Upr«.

^ I «„ -" ~ '"■'«' "PvomDro J 851. • « *

i:i n«. Od.. Que le D^fendeur e"t nronlf ] .f "'' ""*■""«'■« "'^^^^'^^t 4'

•la p.«B«t4'^u dit «cto do I'Zdaou I'Tfr 7r V *""" ^^ ''^ ^^'^P' «Pr^4^

.me„t\{la pai«atio„ du dit acto ^o yJZn" ^I'^T' °«^PJ^Po46rio«re.
suidit pour conserver la dito hvnSthAn.!. I 1 . . ®"* ^n'^istr*! comma

, £e D6foncIeurpIaida ; oue l'i.n,„tuSe« ,! .Hl ^W " '""""' P'<^PriQ.aire. .
- sedait cot immeuble par bona t^t^Z^'^'^'!' ™f ''"' ^"'''' P^-

^ no. enrpgi^ot uL donatL L Tr T " *^"^' "•" ^^^'"1847^^

^, Harpip 4,,„ ^ ^:Xh^:i r::: ^

J temb«, 1854 et o„;5^, ,, ^0 septf^USfll '\'-:^'^"''^'^.^iP5U !« 1«> -p, .

^ cr^ancb rocla™6e^.e„ autant ^e^S^ dCT^'TT"''^^

^ l'actcd..do„atio,.dul.:^^^,te

copie de cet^te d^fecbang/ ^^ !^- «• J>?%>4ou^' recpnotf avoir re^u

Xa/re«ay«^ pour Jepeinandeurpr6teDiit*iuflIM.r,.«^r>-^V ' . ' N
gation>,^,oi«dWgistJe„t.exi^ etot^awS„"f ''''"'^'^*^^^^

4 Vict., q^, 3b ; et il cita des pi^cfiSts dTL r^ c . > P'"'**''^" ^« '* ,
^^j;o...:.ordBiebopotMout.a.^^^^^^

.-i^j"

• *

h

_ LejHgement rendu par la cqur a.a«5c6rdi les
Jemand^ur Bur le principe quo rhypoi&^uo''
droit acquis que I« loi.ne lui avait pas'enlevA.
• Ld/renaye ft Bruneau, pour lo Demandeur.
MarchetsauU, pour ]& D6fenrf«..f,.

v^'.

rclusfolisdeylaij^clarationda
irale du Demandeur 6iait ub

./

140

fc^UPERIOR COURT, 1857 A 1969.

fcfc/.-*

m.\

V

.1 Coram C. MpNDKLKT J. ' ""

i " * • •

■ 'i • ■ .. ;• No,Ma^.^

, - Close VB. Close.

■ I . ■ ■ ■ - . ■ ' ■

I ' ■

\ LK8S0RS AStD LBBSf Es' ACT — JURISDICTION. ,

1 ' * ■ , ^ ', ■ ,

Hi'ld,-n)tt \ doclinatoiy exception i» Rood in law to mi action of damagM for no^-deliveiy of pro
mtscs loai^sd, brouglil into Court undcr'tlie proviaions of tlie Statute 18 Vic, cap. 108, commonly
callod||ie IiCssorsaiidLeMecH' Act. ,

. The declaration of the plaintiflf claimed £600' from the defendant, being
damages fori broach of ar contract in not giving hira poBsession of oedain pre-
mises in the terms of ia written lease. -— — ^^^-.-^ ^ , . ,, „^ _

The prayer of the decla>)itioo was, that the dofijndant should answer the
demand in pt^rsuance of the Statute conwnoRly known as the Lessor and Lessee
Act. 4.' ■ ' ■

The dtfendi^nt met the action by an exception declining the jurisdiction of
the Court und^r the Statute in question, 18 Vic, cap. |08, for the mattora set
forth in the declaration^of the plaintiff as being simply an action of damt^es.

The plaintiffideraurred to the exception for several rea'sons, the main oiw
being that the WatteicfOiUegcd in th^^declai-ittion arising out of the relation of
landlord and tei^ant/and of the brei\ch of "a ediitract of lease, are under the
terniA of the St^itute, within the sumiparyjurisdi^ion of the Justices of the
Superior Court I ■'\""" — ,.3 -^. 1 :^'

i?he parties wefe then'*'heard upoh the demurrer, 9ird^t}ieiWdm' was dismissed
with costs. ' ■ \

V

\

E^ Carter, for plaintiff.

Devlin <& Flemifig, for defendjant.

peoiucrer dismissed.

v-

HOOTItEAL, SlsT MARCH, ISin. \ .

•■'■■■ " . ■' . V ■^■•' - ■
Coram Smrofifl^gg :, >

,^The same cause.

■' ■ « : ^

LBdBORS AND lessees' ACT — JCRISDICnON.

1 ■ .* .-« ■

Heldt-^That the Superior Court haa no summary juriadiction under Is Vio., cap. 106, in'an action of
damages for breach of contract of lease, in not delivering possession of the leased premises to the
lessee.

This cause was finally heard on the merits of the exception^diclinatoiire in the
ilanSh term, 1859. " .^ " 1^"

Per Curiam.— The Court has no jurisdiction to try the present cause under
the Lessor and Lessee Act,' and maintains the exception.

Action dismissed.
£. Carter, for plaintiff.

.•.'tin n

—~ljmin~£ itemiw^VfSt d&tbM&'Mr

■ \

Beld.-
de
jn

" Th

one J

On

GautI

menti

Julie

vifa et

. ^ fruit s

Tht

aox <ii

pri^td

degrd,

doni^igi

les sub

* taire «

accept <

taire, U

Pur|i

donat«i

mentior

soeurs s

dame d

sppartit

soito pa

taire k t

Julie

(Jcan^B

and Mm

' viving, a

nvses toj

On th

lliildren,

TfceD

Umcolle

thereof, I

Mamta

qnestipn i

■" ■•■— v^'---

^1

v- , •

SUPERIOR COURT, 18«9.

141

I

MONTREAL, SOtr MlROH, MBJ
Coram Smith, J.
No. 1166.
Joteph V. Ca$tonguay et al.\

Julie Castonguay. of a certain hn„.« oIj T . T*" **^ ^""^ JauglKer
Hiedeodthen went 0D tolljiTili^ fhn i4j:,„ J '•I'imiio, «&

Mite p.H.g4 ,„t,.,„, ^ „„,!„' ,*""'» W»>8 a,,.„g8 p„„, t,„ «,_

nigy^forriaiirtM^

!^^S!SS5^f«^T^^^

"^ -H" «. «.. i.,«,^„ .r.,;j;i'';r-.:.iru. M. , „,?;

That

V

US

SUPERIOR COUBT, ia5». ,

«

k

•:'' "^

. •

'/'■

1 ■ "■ ■ ■■;i

this deed was »n badly drawn that it was^mpoaaibie to apply to the leolinioal
eipressions there used their strict and legM signiQoation, mi there whs no fx)*-
aible interpretation of the de«d ibroughout by which the use of the worda
<*tMu/rMir" and *' »ub$lituUon'* ^ould be roconcil^d. It was therefore necfssary Uh,
aeek from the general terms of the deed the intention of the donor, and, on tha
part of the Plaintiff he contended : Ist. Tliat though the word *« MM/rniV"' was
used io the clause of donation, it was quite evident that it wm really the fall
property that was given, previ, in favor of certain other parties, for the deed
expressly stales that the donor divested herself of the property. In fiivor oi
whom, thent Not of the (hihlren,. for they did not exist, and *'ltniant n$ .
pout avoir aueune propriiU." (Vide Pothitr Des Huocessions, c. 11, sec 9
art. ler, p. %, — 4to.,) Besides, by the terms of the deed, the oliildren to be born
are »ub$tituted to their mother. H e*tl^l l)e pretended that they were snbaU-
tuted for the usufruct, for, independently bf the rule of hvr just cited, sut<h •
olauM is unnecessary. The usufruct of itself would fuUow the property on th«
death of the usufructuary. This interpuelation e<^ua|ly applies to the disposi-
tion of the de6d in casefqlie Casionguay should 'die without issue. Tbo bro-
thers and sisters surviviiig should fouh take their share previa in favor of their
children who were substituted to them. Or if it b« maintiined thilt the deed
of donation contained two conditions (a proposition which its terms do not njto- -
gether dibcourage)r-fint, the death of Julie Caktonguay without issue bat tear-
ing brothers and sislersr— second, her death leaving no brotheis and sitters bat
only nephews and nieces, the former of which really hi^ppcoed, then it is on-
oecessary to 4totbarrau the argument with the consideration of wh^ the donor
meant through the confused use of tbo words "nm/hf/f " and ** SMbtHtutum,**
because ^ean Baptiste Castonguay the younger was the son of the donor, and
one of her heirs, and also the heir of his sister Julie, and took, if not under the

' d^ed, at least by tlie common law, and the union of the usufruct conveyed to
him by the deed of donation, at least under this reading of the deed, to th«
propeity; i& which be succeeded, destroyed the former by confusion, and he
transnailtM his third to his children, att(cur« of the Plsintiff. (Vide Reper-
toire; Yo. Usufruit, sect V^ § 0, p. 407 ; An. Penisart, Vo. Usufrnit^ No. 85 ;
Lacombo, Vo. Usufruit, 1W^^3. ^

2hd. If the word uiufruify^n to prevaili^and the nse of the words mAiHfui$ .

: apd «t(ft«ft/i<ltoRrwere to b^'explained away, tt^vould avail the Defendants no-
thing unless they could show that the droit d'ac«roi$$ement, operating in dona-

.tions of usufructs by will but not in bequests of property, did not affect such •
deed as, tl)is.* It is a deed of donatiqn entre vi/$ et irrtvoenble, and ia so called
by tho parties to it, and not n will. The distinction too made between nsa-

.fructs and pr6perty as ngaxda aecroi»9emtHt is a pure subtlety, and ought to be
restrained and not be applied to-a new class of deeds. (Vide Ferriire, DicU de
pratique, Vb.Accroiasement;; An. Penisart, Vo. J^ccroissement, No. 18; N.
Denisart, Vo. Aocroiatomenti §Vl., 2.; Ricai^d) t 1, p. 640; Tr. des Pen.
Bntre Vifs, ; also Toullier, 8, No. 448, and 6, No. 609.

i?oHpiH,A.A.,fcrPrfejndiwK»Mdtbftjdej8d Q^doM e»tablished a ostt- -

froct, first in faror o£ Julie Castonguay, and, in case of her ddaUi without iisue^ -«

>'-t"

aUUEWOK COURT, 1809.

14t

— «lo. BesMk* that m far m m>»...j. .i' , \u L ^ ^« 8 *i P- M»,
* th«iB.» "« « uw agent wm pwteodod to renounce fer

SiiiTH, /.-Tfcl. i« M action hhJoffht bV the M.ln*'/ .•. '^
the childw. of Jean JJaptiMe Castolln?/* ^'•'">ff ~ »««» repr^nrnfative of
-tate In the city of Monttr.. " orifZ' .T"" L""'"' •" «"*"'»«*»

by the oLiWren of /ea« Ba'pt. C^^^tMl^^ T^ ' "'^ ** \''"
tiate Caatonguay and a. cI.V„i„g uurfnZ a ert^^^^^
c-ted hyl|«o. St. Oen„.5n, !n the 1 5th da, o^^ J *""■ .***""•"""• •''^
h«Bd«d. and twenty-,even.bv which dJ^^K^^^^'*"' *''**""•"*' ''g***
tongo^WendthLth'arLnt M^^

.the«.U|it.tioMr«.ediu.edonLt^^^t^T^^^^ ^

hia brothenaad aktera, Ja of tha i.«»n«dl!!i/ . . - ""?*«»« Caatonguay,

that the right of Je« Bapti»te CuZT^ !^J^^f^f' GMtonguiiy at aU; v ■
$oA that. a. the u^mitl^ciT^^I '■''»'•."»'•» «f • r«» 'iwfrt.ctuary
the»..d.i.te«.„T:r47^^f^^^^^^^ ^i. hi

*onga.,i„ the«nsrrWlLnJi)ZS;S,t <^

that the riirbt of Zuf^i « .m, f*?***'*'*' *« w* broiheri and aisfoa. mrf •

•111 uader the donatio, totoke ZZ^Z fS^S , <^»<»*«"y *«»'«•*.,
tUte Ca-onguay and the hro5^ VJiSrfJjrtla ^ ^ -^•'" ^'^
Jji.g IthoHt chOdrevwhich I. not JiX^/^\t^tT^t:!!:'™°*'"'•
by the donation to tafc, the ptoperty .'«U ST^ ^ * ^^^^^^ °^**' '■

f^^"t::^tri^

"^r

i\

c

<*

./^-

144

SUPERIOR COURT, I8A9.

■Hii|pi>y.

Ttia Mecond escoption Mti up the iiwn« grpund of (|«fcno«) with tli« addition
thai oven if the ohiltfreii had any right of pr«>|ferty, until the extinotion of
the um/ruit to J<iaii l)a|»tliite Outonguaj Bud hi|i brothflrn and iiiHtor«« no right
could v<Mt within, nnd tliai the present action, even \f founded in ii|w, iji pre*
lOMturo. „ ,

Tiia tliird ground' K that as the children of Jeai) Baptinto (Tnatongiinj hid
renoniicod the KUcce««ion of their fntlier, what right even they might have
bad uUdcr the donation wis. lost by the renunciation, and tlint conHoquentlj '"
the lillo of Plaintiff in that renpecl ia bad.

The title of tho PliiintitT therefore rmts on the donation of the Ifilh of Maf,\
1827, executed by Madame Ht. Oermoifi^ Tlie Pliiintiff awtortii tliat the dona-
tioi to Julie' Cimlonguiiy^ tbo rovenwoft of which, under the term* of tho dom^
tion, is given to Jonn Daptiste Ci»tbngnay, jii aomething more tliHn a miit¥~
uitt/ruU. That.»l(£ iit^r#v^(f« Muhittitutimt in favor of her cWI.Iron, ehpuld
she have any, and that, nitfi'ough it h qualifio<l' as a u$v/ruit, it is in point of
law a donation of tho property itself, and titat her brotiiera and sisters, taking
the property afie^ her detroase wilhoutichildren, are themselves grevit in favor
of thuir own children, and that the sabstitulion b^ng oreat^l by a donation
and not by a will, and it having had its effect by the donees having possessed
the property, an(^that a diviition was Ynadtf among the dunces of 4hoir respec-
tive shares, the share of each donee, on his decease, vested in his children, and
conso(|uently tho title was complete.

It was also asserted, that even supposing the donation to Julio with reversion
to hef brothers and sisters, was that of a mere uau/ruit, yet as tho um/ruit had
vested under tito donation in Jean Baptiste Castonguay and others, that it be-
' came a separate right in eauh, and on tho death of Jean Baptiste Castonguay
his Bhare''^lhe mu/ruit became reunited ii the property and vested in his
children as his heird;^ and in support and corroboration of this view the Plain-
tiff contended, that from the terms of the donntion itself it was the clear inten-
Uon of the donor to grant tho property itself to her children, burthened with •
substitution in favor of the grand-children; for if the donation- involved simply
a droit dlumfruit to Julie and her brother and sisters after her, the donfttion is
defdciive in this, that the prdperty after the decease of the brother and sisters is
given to no one, and that it cannot be supposed that it was the intention of the
donof- to give a more right of usufruit without at the same time bestowing the
property on some one, and that from this alone t|ie intention of the donor ia°
manifested so as^to show that it was the property- itself and not the mere enjoy-
ment of it which was contemplated by the dpnor in making the deed.

The first point to be determined in the settlement of this T]ue<tion, is to di»>
cover what the real intention of the donor was in making the donation in ques-
tion, and what-was in reality bestowed on the donees by the deed. On refe- °
rence to the donation it will be found that the intention was to create a me(«,
nsnfructuary right in favor of Julie Castongqay. The words used bj the clonikr
appear to me to leave no doubt on this point The donor expressly doclnras
that she desires to give the enjoyment only to JuHg during her life tjme,fQr tl>»

*"

«•»

(•ni

T

' whii
fivir

her

■ Tl

TRftt

then
thin;

0tll«l

~ same

In

it, an

the ii

wouU

tb«o/

' 9 vest II

. Tl.<

where

the re'

P«rty,

also. ,

favor c

of the

and de

in (avc

cbildrei

Ther

donor V

. the pro]

It was t

usufruct

of the I

ters. If

one of

the tern

■ionof tl

bad be^n

terms of

right cou

nd even

bom af^ei

Mnvertini
dear and

Ui

trur"™-". «- --^x:■;:x::;x"^-;5
Hint. i. »,, .h. ..j„„„.rt SI r.i "»""«: °' "" -'»"»' i> "• "..•... 4-

tbo l„t«..tio„ of tb. .,o,.or .„ u* teC T„ f''''^^ '" ""' '•''"'^••'"^ '^ wa.

would I.Hr« cimnge,. ti.e cl.aracter of tl H *'•'"* '^° '""■^"•' *•» J"''« *»''««>

. tb. effect, ia a^Zry fnce <iTh XL^^^^^^^ '".'''"''-"«• "hvo W

«ve.tn^ the property in J„||e. * ''^' •"*• ""»»'«■••» "'tantlon of the donor, of

^ froi^ "^-t:!!! of!^!::;":';^":::' ^' ^.""" ^''^ p-p-t^ -^^^^

Porty, .n.| «t the very time the w«r^ ! f • '^"L"*'*' ^'"" *''• "«'"* of prp-

fcvorof U.e children of Julie to take Iftlfh t^ t, '""T"'^ of ,ub,tilution in

of the property to the childrel oU„,l tL T ' "' " '" * ^^""^ donation

•nd detached from it .ad ..uUut^ t ^ff^". '"^'"«^«««» fir«t .eparated

in favor of the brother, .ad I^TTj r * k*"* '''"''^'''*' "'""« -««ted
children. " ""^ '"'*'' '^ «'"''• "> the erent of her dying witho^

tb. property lSep«ir ^d ce^roTher I't wlS I V f \ ^'^ '"^''^"^ ^
>t WM the intention of the dono- . 1 • P^ "'^ "'^"'j' •'«>'' ^ me th.| •

••■» ft u cr«i, torn, .hrt^rriril^i 7 S '•'•''*»*•'■ "'»•!►

•k« tan of n, d„^„„. j,^JT!™° »'■•' •» gi»«n to J„|i, uM»

>-?ii'

-ife

. f??^^^!'^

Mi

rTthT

\

>

S

-imm Th« vi%firmtt wu to |{o In on« Hn«, ntintly, th^ ohttdraa of th« (kiMt, tn^
i. the property in unotlter lin«, n«in«)ly, the grand ebildrea, and the donatioa ia
Civor of both took efftot at on* and tli* mom a^omant. And supposing that
tha ohildr«-n, JU tli« haira at law of the donor, might aventually take the pro*
p«riy at tha turmination of tha un^rttit ao far aa llic tarma of tha <lonatio« art
•oncerned, th«>y coiitd not take the property M the beira at law of their fiithar,
Jean Itapti*t« Caatongaay, aa ba could not tranam^ to Uiain any right of pro-
•perty wliatitoerer. |

Tbo cbildrenxof J«Mi Uaptiste Caatonguay are only called by tha donation to
take the property io one oaaa, vii., in oaat of the brothera and lialeia of Jali«
dying before iior, and abe (Julio) dying without ohibiren. But aa ihia oaaa did
not Irappeit, the children of Jean Uaptiste Castonguay could only olaim pro*
_perty under tho donation on the principle that (heir father, Jean Uaptiste Oaa-
topguay, waa liinMolf proprietor, and it ii on this prtnoiplo that this action ia
directed against the broiliors and sisters of Jean Baptiste Caatonguay, m if tlicy
were, all proprietora ^r indivii.

\ Now I think it is ahown thiit be was not proprietor at all, but a mere oan-
(Iructuary, and aa such ba could transmit in hia aucoeasion so right of property
\iirhatever.

The neitjpoint urged by the Plainllff ii^ that « the un^U was ereatad by
• donaUon and not by. a will, that afler it had oi*« vested in tiie usufrttotaariaa
tb»t it bevame a separate right, and aa no express mention wii made ia tha
donation to take tha property so soon as the enjoyment of tho share of Jean
Baptiste Castonguay ao separated from the others by separate enjoyment had
lapsed, tba share of Jean Baptiste Caatonguay again bacama lennitad to tha
property and became vested in hia heirs, and that the other joint uiafraotaa-
riea could not oUum this iMw/ruil of the share of Jean Baptiste Caston^ay par
droit d'aeeroi$$*tiunL This pretension rests on tb« presumption ^at Jean Bap-
tiste Castonguay was in reality grevi dt *ub$titution, and not a mere nsufrn^
tufiry. That :b tbil respect a donation ia different from a laat will, and that in
donationa the droit d'aecroiuement doea not attach as it does when the right ia
given by will, and that even if no snob distinotioii eiisted, the right of Jean
Baptiste Castongnay having onde veated in bim, and ha having enjoyed bia
right by a distribution with the othor usufruotuariea of the rente, isaoea, and
profita of tla immoveable estate that the separation and diviaion so made op<H
fated as a bar to a^ droit ^oterot*$enunt, which, in the abaenoe of any auob
wparation and diviaion, tt<ight have otherwiae attaohed. Oa thia point, I an
ilgainst the Pidotiff. It js true that in respect to the pretensbn aa reapects tha
tkoit ^neerotitmmt it doe* not uaaally exist in donation*, ia between the doaor
•nd the immediate doni^ but when a snbatitntion of tha umtjruit h eniat*i
by the donation, and to take effsot after the daceaa* of Uie original done*^ theii
it Mems to me Uint there is no distinction mado io tha law between sn]|atita»
lion* creatad by donation and tho*a oretted hj last will (aea obationa from Biff
card and othaia), atid tiiat whan evan from the toraa of tbo anbatitatioiuk oow*
intention i*^t plainly mamfarted tharaio, tho low yimaam thaTlKiiw^

w^^mwsmn^^mwi^^mmWi

r-.:p'

.•*- ..

■if:; ' . ■ .

■.„■ rr^ ■■ ■■ ■ '■

■rtz.

•/

•l?PKBIOB OOUBT, HM.

■'5',

t4f

^■%"'

^ll^ \^ T '^"*' ""'*** *^ *••• '^^^ "^ P^P^rtf from whioh U

ttol, It .ppear. to m. Ui.t th«r. i. cr«.UNl . «».«/««„, r«i;.n,»«. In f.tor of
th« brother. .»d ri^r. of Jull^ by which th. .urWror of ih«m w«. U, Uk««
•n<J enjoy uni.l U.« fl..| t^rniin.tion of Ui« .ubtlUullon. Th« thinir ((bat k

b the .„Mtu Uon of the enjoyment of thi. prop^ty. .n<J .!«> given to Ihem^

^il fr ' •r'." !** *"• '• -"'^ ^ **•• •'P'^ »•"»• «'»««• donetioa

tli- H ^u^ ' '" ""• •"""' ''^"'•' '*""'**"' •""» ''•^" .ucceeding to th.

wi^-Mt (the property) en only be Uken .fu,r ihe e.tinction of The ««-

Ami. The mere fwt th.t the brother. mcI .i.t«r. b.»i«g enjoye,! tog«lh«r iht

W-.* .".1 iWt they di^jjgJihe rente. Imm. .nd proflu ILg Zn i\ not

' |b« uaafhietuerifl., w
ibe ti««/hM< IK it fell
t., lo Jetn RaptlHe Oeetoi ,
^ Jnr4 »on dteruetndi, bef<
It had been originally gep

1/^

/ :'■

luli creata upnf.te and indopandent righU in

,he hoir at Uv to the property each part of

••uit aa a whole pamed under the dopatflo

other., and it mutt terminate a. a wVIe,

again united to the profwrty from^ch

. " o ,r *» 'oPff th^wfore a. there are uaufructuariea

to enjoy no property can reat {q the heir* who may be entiUed to ehiim after
„ thetoriiilnationofth0«*n/)-i,i<. , - S»«'" «ier

Aa-uming, therefore, that the right Of Jean Baptist* Cartonjinar under the
dona ion ^wa. a mnv^u^ruU, a life lntare.t, and a revereion of th/ right giren
toJuhe; «condly,th.t he (Jean Bapti.te CH.tonguHy) could tran.mit in hi.
imcce«.on no right of property whaterer to hi. children; thirdly, that the chil-
dren are pot .pecially called by the donation to take the property, except in
ZT ,?^f eiplained, which did not happen ; fourthly, that a. no one i.
•p^ially called to take the property after the um/fuit pa.aed to Jaan Bantiata
Oirtonguayand the other.; fifthly, that the heir* cannot clnlm .ny right in
it S: !; -'•; VJ"' fi"> «tinction of the u^ufruit, I .m of opinion t .It
the children of Jeau Bapti-te C«.tong«ay had no right of prOpertfander the
dona .on wh^h they could legally conrey to th^t PuL^ancf tU Z
•cllon mu.t b« dismiMed, with cosu. HW , "w we

^ action « garantU tha P|ainliff ha. judgment .gain.t Defe»daDt m '
f^«« to lodemni^y him agaiaat prewnt judgment with coal^ ^~^ ^

.T. JT. JZamaoy, for Plaintif. ^ .

Chtrritr^ Dorion 4 Dvrim, tot DeiiuidaOta.

■.;■ \^\.'; .:■'■■ :■■■:/■:'- ' ■^,'^' -'■'■'—' :\„. /■. - '- ■■'■■''■■■ -■'.:. -'"^^

^^!9fim^

>K'

■^-^^m

%■

;4

'm-

"^^smr^—

:'»■■

148

COURT OF QUEIN'S BENCH, 18fi9.

IN APPEAL,
FBoii Tni aDpnioii ooobt, DisTaior or moxtmal.

HONTBBAL, STE HABCH, 1881.

Coram Sir L. II. L*f ontainb, Bart., C. J., AvLwiit, X, DcvA^ J., ,

MONDKLKT, (C.,) J. ^ .

\ \ , ' ■ .■'■-:■■: - No. ».

AttTHUE 0. WRBSTER, /

(Plaintiff i»t\eCimrtheU»B,;

, - Appellant;

I I IPB 0^N» TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY OF CANADA.

. .' ■» _. : (Dif/lMdant in Um Court belMir,J

4 - ReHpondent.

< * ''JomZTJ^S h*'°. h"*'*'^!:! *!:" '"^ t"""*"^ ^ offered to ,urm,de, ,uoh tt^mtir to the

™T r. ''•^,''«'""""'«« that the Compaav KhouM tr.m,fer the share, on their book. wei»

.UOkient to meet the requirement, of the Company', charter. moir Dook.. w^

This was an appeal from the ju.Igment of'the Superior .Court, at Montreal
rendered on the 28th of June, 1858, and reported at page 291* and seq. of the'
. w2iid Volume of the Juriftt. , , • i

^ The judgment of the Superior Court was reversed, and the judgment of the

Court of Appeals was in the (V.llowing words :-" The Court, considering

tliat the d. preeiation in the value of the capital stock of the Appellant, aliec^ed
m his declaiaion, is therein stated to have been occasioned by the unlawful
' refusal of the i)arty-^^(»pondent to permit and allow the Appellant to dispose of
and transfir the same ; considering that the Appellant his all.ged injury sus-
tamed by himself, by an acf of the Hep .ndent, f.r which he h.is personally a
• riglit to demand damages from the p.irty llespondent ; considci ing tha the lies-
poiidcnt shouM properly have avail.-d himself of a defence to the merits, and that
the defense au JbrnLs en droit by him pleaded, is insufBcient and ^Ihif.nn.led in
, law, aiid tlir.t, ihcref.lre, in the ^ud/mem of the Court below, bjCj^whi.di the said
^defanse au fonds en droit has been maintained and the App.;liant's a-tion has
f ^becn dismissed, there is crroi^T— it is considered and adjudge I by the Court
henvtliat the sai I judgment, that is to say, the judgment rendered l;y the Su-
p ri..r Couit at Mon:real. on the twenty-ei^With day of June last bo an 1 the
sane is hercl.y rivers, d ; and pioceeding to-^render the jiid-mer^All.ich the
Coiiri' Ixlow ouo:I,t to have rend.Tcd, it is further conSdercd and a<ljnd-ed,
tliat the s ,id defemK au fo,vh en droit be and fhQ sjwne hcrrl.y i*' overruled ;'
. that the paitics'do proce-d to the adduction of evidence ujmn the issue of fact
beivftfcn then,,, arfd th.t the sa=d Respondent do pay to the Ap,.r-llant the costs
by hihi ifk-urred m this behalf, a- ivell in the Court below as if the Court llfere,

- hnd that tlic record b^ remitted." ^Tlio Hon. Mr. Justice ikondelet disnm.

tf-..<- \ ^ . . :

iat

^

/

COURT OF QUEEN'S B^CH; 1869.

149

iJpZ 1 ^I'i ' u T "? ^'"" "»«>'•«'"«"'. '«'"*'lced that in the Mr^
against the Company, the act complained of «« not having been performed ■•**•

wa. ri T ^ 'I '"" ' ?"' *''° ™°'* P°*«"' '•«'«"» «'''^'« influenced him
was tia. no such act.on as the one brought c6uld li«. This action is b.o.rrtf'^^

fll'r"^ " statute, compellingahe registration of transfers of stock IhF^

unden,tand..g, „,th Lemcurier, Routh St Co. and the S,Hvings Ba,'.k, of which'v
^C^papy^e. nothing. The a.^u,pent was tl^the't ralr w^t^ '
•bsolufe. n«s.^flch as ,t ^Ti^not carried out by the (ln,.any. The answer

rZn ; 111 f""^' P'-opr.etors, might have sued tlie Company or

on «''e part of Webster agamst the Company. Thh di/ense en droit is fyled on

of tM opmiofr In England they have the general demurrer which answers to
oudifi>nseendrou,.ud the special demurrer which answers to our exception
In/! ^ '"^"\ '''' former/the only ditferencb between the English .
pleadmg and our, ,s, that wp ai-e required to give .peci*! reasons, which if an
.mprovement on the English system. There was an ordtnance of iva ce whi"
compelled Courts of Justice to decide in limine. Why have an enn2> w «„
tjom the ver,a.teg«tions of the Plaintiff it appears he l!Z2Z^\ I '

• t^olrr" ""' f •"' Bee why an «.«»,/«.•„ rf,,J, should have
^1/tir r'"^^'^*'''- ^°'"^"^«'-' »>-^*''« «t«ltuto a duplicate transfer .
the Company 8 books. No^. how can an action like this, which is to compel .
tairet"' «'«, !'''"f ' -^r *'« •"''" -try there;f, be broughtrTh

a mater wherem the Company is not pUceJ .„ demeure. O,. the whole I
;2"-'-t''ej";lff;-nto the Court below was good. Webster did not c'aU on

the Gnn,.a..y to do anything. At all eV"en.s he has pot ,he pr.se,^ action.

nnl :"T ," T °* "»« ""-g"""""' the ca.e se.n.ed so-plain that I

who ,e„.lo,c the judgment m the Court l.elo«f. The motifs of ,hc jud.miit

themselves show that the CourUvas led inWerror as to th/f.et it I : ir„

a.«uedon 'J'^P-t^F theCoMM.any tluathedam.g^3s,if anytcj^^v.^f^Jb^^^^^

.^.^..ces and not , by the IMaimifl; i„a.„u.h ^ iTS^^ I^^Z "^ ''

^ek took p-aeeaaer the a.ign.n^.t. Now, this i:,.'^:: ^''^.^ ^

^. ...u,lo. On .V -n-ing ,o .l.u has been tern..! a,, .si.nuu.t, it be^ ^^

hat L,.„.esune, IJontl. A. Co. arcto amount to- the Plainti.r fbrl.,: .. L^ U v '

T.;oi:;:r .tXt ;::d^r; w::;irtr Jc ^'"'^ • ^^"-'^ ^-'-^^^ ^

^,.„ . ^i - . . * ■ '^'^» *V>"''a tfeCo.i!,(.crtaiii— - t stIioiUrf.*

due to them by ihn l^jnliff. . ITio fall inlhe va'ue of .Iw. L u '^ T ' ^

f ■

-■'s-

150

COURT OF QUEEN'S^ BENjCn, 1850.

.OMMTMmk

.0*.

affect Lome«urier Roiith & Co., who %ill clHim from tbo Plaintiff what the^
cannot get from the Company. The dcclaratioo alleges this damnge to be so
much per cent ; but the Company exp«tct to get rid of ihia demand on a general
demurrer, that is, admitting the fact alleged to be true, they say the Piuntiff
has no action.

As to the alleged want of privity of contract, \t is too plaiir to call fot any
remfirk. The Plaintiff is a stockholder, and to him t^e Company is responsible.
Aylwin, J. — The Appellant being possessed of 208 shares, of £26, stg.", ea^,
in the Grand Trunk Railway, on the 1st October, 1858, and being indebted^ to
the firm of Lemosuricr, Routh & Co., in the sum of £1403 Ifis. 1d^ curroney
transferred to them 58 of these shares as collateral security for the payment of
thadebt, and in order that the said firm might realise the amount of it, «a
assignment was executed, tn dutform of law, as the declaration alleges, in their
favor, the whole on the understanding that the surplus of the proceeds, after
deduction of the Appellant's debt, should be paid. to him by the firm. The
declaration states that Lemesurier, Routh ^ Co. t^reupon duly demanded of the
Company to transfi^r the said 68 shares to, them, and then and there also pre-
sented to the Company the said transfer, and offered to surrender the same on
the due enregistration of the same on the books of the Company ; but that the
Company wholly nq^lected and refused so to do, whereupon on the 24th De*
cembcr, 1853, several similar verbal applicatibos in the mean time having been
fruitlessly made to the Company by the firm in question to the same effect, jm
application was made in notarial form by Mtre. Gibb add his colleague, notaries,
reiteratiiig the former demands. It is then alleged that the Company persisting
in the former refusals, the said ^rm duly ]^<^tkd (ot alle^tj^httea, damaytf,
injuries, and Aiir/s suffered and sustained, or whiph thereafte^^ii%ht be unstained
in consequence of the premises, as the whole will more fully appear by reference
to an authentic copy of such demand aricf protest, herewith froduetd and fyled,
and b which the Appellant in the declaration particularly re/erred, at/urminff
part of those presents.

A similar transfer dp«iA the like conditions is also alleged as having been
made by the Aradlant to the Savings blink of 210 oiiher shares of the same
railroad stock, liM the demand and refusal to register are again stated in the
declaration in substance as above mentioned.

The declaration thf(| pr)(>ceeds to set out "that in ao refining to transfer the
said several shares on the i>ooks of the said Company as aforesaid, the said
Company assigned no legal or sufficient ground for ;iriUiholding such trsnafar
and moreover had not any legal or sufficient ground or .justification for
^' ^ting, but on the contrary were bound and liable forthwith oa the^iemanda
so m^ as aforesaid, to transfer the said several shai^ on the Books of Uie
said Compiiiny, to the parties so demanding the same. That at the said several
periods when the said demands wer^so made as aforesaid on the said Company
Defendant, to transfer the said sevefal shares of stodk on the Books of the said
Company, the teid 268 shares were worth, in the Montreal Mark^^nd were
readily saleable therein at 18 per cent discount, and that had the said Company
JMencH&t t^lb^red Ibe said ^fieToh {Ee eaU BooEToTtKe aud Q^mfany

.\ v- '

SI,

%■

-\

HHiU

OOURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, im.

J ■ I ' ' II ■

Drf«„d.nf „ tfc^ were bound to h.,e done, the .aldLeme^urier. Roath A Co'..
Pl«nt.ff oouM Uv» and would h»*e «,Id and d»po8«d of the ..m« foV„

- SJS^mZ;;*^^^"'^ -id Company Defi^.„trtiU^

7 i T -V "" ^ '""**'f <»" *• B»okt of the^iid Comimnv th«

<Tis^r:lr^'''']:^'''^^^^^^ «nuiZTh 5;;^

-?.;«?' " *•**• •••'' Company tnin«ferred on their t^ Book, the afoww

' ^ tlfotiZ' -A^u k. '"^ ^"P»"y *""'*"^ «>«• -id 210 .hare, m

' \^Zl^l7il^Z:i^T^^^^ Thatiathel^

.«nm bet,yoen the lime whei^he Mid transfer on tUfl Company', .aid Bookawa.

wh^:z lt«t " ^''^' *" V"* '-p-«^^ ^^^ -^^o-S

o^lvllnllfcfK K ^Z"**^^ value, that the

I^lm^ ?*»*"* ^•"«'«"«^ Bo-th A Co, and the .aid Bank were

Jtt«.p^.^ely«i^e. on the Book, of the said Company a. afor««,id, wa. £4868

we« firl fr^ ^r '^.f'^^^^ *^' P*"'*^ •''«° *^« demand, to that effect
iirot«.t ^hhTk ^ ^' ^J'-'j!><'«P««dently of loiaof interest and cS of

STh -i ? ; '«"' -d/nja^iaable act. of the «»id Company DefSan J

l^f^C'^u- "'i*"'*' ^'' "" P~^* -«' ^^^J**' incidentardamai afo^
•.rf.the«KiPIa,.tiffe.ymate..t£fl68 19.. lod. Cy. That by reXofX
«jl/-ena pn^mi^ «.d by law the m4 Plaintiff haU. a right to ZL fr^m

SSa «dui !r *^^ ^•"T'"' '"^ •»'«»«d'»«'^«« ««««0«^» Bupport thereofi

thi?.I*lo?rKv" "'"^ *"'^"'"" »ot*con^petent to the Appelant to bring

r^rB^fra^fe « i^Tr "'^ '^ ^!>«r '^that tlier. lid bet
2^i£?«^t 11 I ,? ^"P'"^' ""* fat «. regaled thi,^ partie. tic
^«t^«!lt^r ?'T'i'^"T rule oJiaw^i. «„4;^,/a.7 /.

-^1 T IT TP***"* *** *• App^-lWt to mate a. rftany wparate fcrign-
XZldbff"" '^'-""otthf^W.ap.rtiali.n.LtoE.

Li;^

4

US.

- Mi

•URT OP QUEEN'S b'eNCH," 1889.

^-

t'

J^ ^ The loM sustained V the Appellant by the allejjia impropt-r refuSal of the

■TS3t.or* ««8poi.dent to recognize the transfer, a., alleged, in thedecUraUon,»a» personal

to himself, j»nd he never mode any assignment of hi« claim fi.r damage* or

divealedhii^selfofit. Neither of the assijinees could sustain an action fr^cover

-^osedamages, as they formed no part of thw subject matter as^igned^ ^n the 4th

Aprril, 1864, and tlw 13th May^ 1854, when the Company transferfedUiarfian*

^*^«f '^f '"'««VltFef bKdTi(rithfeer-aatoir or cl^^^^^^ tjie Company to

recover damages'for the previous refusal to recogBixo the transaction. So far from
appcanng^ to claim damages the assignees accepted the transfer on the lv)oks at
the last hour when the <»>mpany agreed to it. J'he party really injured by the*
depteciation.of his stock and the fall in itn valuebetween the date of the assign-
toenis and the transfers, is the A|>pcllant and no on^ else, and he atone can
_ ^maintain an aciion in damMges. Afthough the demand a^d prottet%e^e made
^*- not iitethe name of the Api.ellant,.but of the assignees, tliat is perfectly indif-
ferent: such demand and protest enured to his benefit. In »ny case instead of-
demurrer, the Company, if it had such » defd.ce, aBould have urged it by
peremptory excepRon. " , - o , ^

The second ground npon which the Court belJw proceeded, was, that it di*
not appear by th^.declaration that the Company w*ere called upon to do an act
which th^ were in law bound to do. That the general Railway Act 14 and 16
Victoria, cap 61, sect. 17, prescribed a particular method for effecting transfer*
of stock, and the deplaration did not shov? the required formalities to have beea
pursued. That the.flrording of the statute should have been followed riaoureu.
,ementd la lettre, aid that the declaration did not allege strict compliance with
the forni prescribed by the statute.
As to the form of aqtidn, the words of thp judicature Act, 12 Victoria; cap. ,
I, sec. ^7, which are the.Iaw prescribed to all our Courts in Lower Canada,
TC express : " No form of action or of words is or shall be necessary in an,
declaration, &c. ; but the parties mi»y and shalh respectively state bon& fide and
to the bes^ of their bchef in plain and concise language, to the interpretation of
which thq rules -Q,f construction applicable to such language in th^erdlnary
tran.aetwU^^ of life do and sfiall apply, so that no allegation or statement' m^y
orshdl bc^reld to be insuOicientiy made if it would be ordinarily underst.Jod to ,
hav^ Hio meaning i,jtonded by (ho party using it! The f.nn of t.an>fer in the
railway act must be pursue.! ; but in declaring in a Court of Law in a case like the
piesent, no precise form is Kcquirol. The 4«lh section of the .Judicature Act
aga.n ena.^ts that to all allegjitious of fact in any pleading the o«iiinary rules of
legal construction shall appiv so that it sltali be suflicie.rt to .support any plead-" "
ingtliatthe f .cts alle-od in itag^je sufli.icutt^ with those proved to^maiutain
the co.i,chis:o!i.s of .such ploajug, or some of ilioij), and that the Court shall be
of oi.imon thai the opposite party cm, Id nU liavo boon inislod by such pleading.
astotho^roalnatuve^inaetloctQftl.ofactsintondeatobu th^r.in allege.1 a.S
to be proved TiiKlcr s-.cli pie uling, andjhe Curl mnju in its di^c-etion, at anu
Ume b^jore judgment, and on strch conduion. as it sMl de'.m just, allow anv
pleading to be amended, so as to agree with the facts proved, if the Court shall
-to-of.'"- *•'■■■' •' ' — '^ — -^ -'-- ■

t

T

ment'

-«t«.^..-UmUhc^»d8 of jusiHw will DO promoted by alloWingsuoh ameiKl-*

* .

.^^

'.J

^^.

*

- t.

>

■ "

f.

v._:%-

M, _

^«> .

'

u

*■

■^s4*-

i ^

5-«

A-

■j«l!.°

Jj f COURT 6p (msSTB BENOH, 1859.

IIHMlli II il I —I I

\

\

m

of iLlltir'' ";' ?°r^.*^ m»ledf,ythi. declaration* to the fo™; W-l...

»H«'*tWer8,n question and entered them on their tooksf ®^ »^W

I^^ave often had to regret that formal objeotiorff art too mudi encouraged in
.....OUT Co"rt...contr«y to both the letter an^the -pirit of ouro^Uw Wi h
: J^ce to demurer in particular it Ib purel, English, -n;^ Z^poI^J

W^y^werTt "f ^^^^ and Continental Court.. Under the lawTC
^nd^n T well oWedMn an able article to he found in the Hth volume of the

' ' ^^Z^Z T ' '• 'V '"^ '^^-o" *f;'>« •°»F"ant difference betwl
inZl? r"'^ ";,^"«'*"''' *"*' " in'roduced^into Scotland (the ia^e

Bh mo4e o pleading by candesgendences and answer J. loose and argum^a-

tive,and?j«>t subject to the discipline of demurrers" '. ^^"B""^'"*

' J/;'?«'-'^'''*'«''^/f'of^«r own la«r. which i. tanl^ount ti the dbn-

fnt r* ^"!: ™°''« ^»'«'«^' armmdments Militated at small expense, and

be coats i,funne<<es8arj«.y«^torm,deito fall on the party occasioning hem

thedemurrcr would aoon declin*^ir^ot altogether cease. /^"""""«^ *"*'"

The tesort to this mode of defeno* has, on sereral previous occasions, be^ri nwv. '

i«« 2"?. ^"fr*"*" "i^ ^^'^ ■"•* '**'**""«^ '" '^^ ^ Courts. This

' %. JufJRnient of Gourt below revepjed.

2r«/Attnft <e Dunkin^'tor Appellant.

Cartier A Berthelot, forRespotadini '

' Andrew BoperUon, CouiiSel

^4

(8.&)

•^r*,

Jm

^

cM«5e et le d^fendeur ne pe^^Uen faire d6b«uter po% raison de la ditSlon^W. .

hors quaad le ces«onairea fSt si^aifier a« d^fendeu^^a cLo^ lHn\T^:i
Civile, l,rr«ta,cbnp. lO, p. 635, ^ditioj 1612, X f ♦ Practiqtt,,

. mejt c6»J.e /Vo.«„«. a.ant droit du c.^daat, ]. 1 et 2, coWXjS- et aS^^

«, \ 8,.de haered. vel ^t. vend., 1. 21. D eod tiluljLl ^ r ^o^Sj. lif acr/l^

rapporte^en ra conf.Tes Coust:mes, pa^Ue 2,* tU 6^' ''' ^^ "*''*• ''^ •"*«»'«?«»«:

JTote X bj Guebois,,to the abbve passage of Imbert.^ ^ ' _„ ' ' _

i

*?.Ti

' 'I

I

^ .

* •S

\

'

'

* . J

"J* - '"-■ '

•

■ ^^•V. .■.

» • '

1

/

*r.

' - '

rf
^

' ■; ;".;?"-■'*<

■•

\
#

i

. *

#

•

"■'

-

'

■r-

— J

w: . ^:■.^^

«- «■■>

•

»

» • ■*

•

,

*

^

« *

*

■

K

,*" ' ■ ■ ':■"'■

. ^u.^ ■.... .,■.

i -. -

• _ * V

^

_^ ^

. ,z -_.„■._■

v.. _^:

"

„

\

^

,

». . - "

X

».

•

,

0

\

-*•: ;.-.-

-*

* •

'

V

' ' H

1.

'

» •

. '

•^^

's

1

*

'

s>

i- _-■.

- * 1

f

-

fOR COURT, 18Sf.

m Baoout, J^

... 'f*)N»ofmipBioMoiiher»l
a^ lINi Vie Mnr% miut be aukfi
|in«1WftNrberW thenturii „_

trnt

•^'{r

M ^- oC*t

Mw. if^^ « 86pj»r^,de
^fth«w^^||Wdocl8rati<)6 ^_ ^ ,^
ti»«> oflScer of tlie aJtweqi^b df
, <^|a,»9rTe a siinilai> copj iqlpttded
^Jliff was Betel with^t to hlgirtaidi
ii»n tbe-j^ccasion, an^ ae^io
, ,^, ,. .. Mg'viDg^mtinietd aUte in

^fil^l?» ^oWMpon left upon the floor' of tlie ,-
^ "^ *H^'''f "*""^ ^^' ""^ce ujM^B her a?
b? undeifig^ed Robert McCdnnick, 4c., do hereby c
fro^ihqtmf& to this Honorable Court, that^'thi

iliM

ipoit iho

Mackay

ber« Tha'

ince, bottha

immedi-

the copj

•rcb otttaidft

iws: ■

abd ratnni
li^enth day of

irs.

rorJ

loer^ ;

feMD ^y«X«r^f 6ar|f.prd one thousand eight ^n^U^ fifty eiJbL
f *i ^ « ho"«^,of ^l^e and one of ^ chx* in the^^noon; I ^d

a^^ on the d^^d^^t «,?. place within- mentioned, to Lwer a. tbo
*^ 1^^ T ':2M""'^'^«"i*^^'' »~J '^q-Vrea by apeaking to a^J
- -' ' i ^^« 5^'^^ *"? '"^W «>SK hereof together with a co^^Hhe «ine^
^.,, , ,«4«dar««>n^ theteu^W? annexfed irith a glo^a person JL t^lZj^
_^;>j>,'^^; '<*• domicile, ,4c." '■■■'■.' t iV- " -■'' "^T.**^"/ •• "ffr

"^ '!v ^ v l^;. ^"'^ "^^ returfSnd reat. opoo^tw^ g^lU^ ,^ ^
' j^ *aente atthe t me of4e alleged aeryjce, wd 2nd, tU ,lb^r^nt o^^

^'f S '^"^ ' J^^^*^** h^ilbrecloaed the Blaintift ftom'^ilii^rS;

, . tte Plaintiff .nscnhed t^e case for hearing under the 3*3rd tale of practice. wiO*.
out answer te the ^ice^ion. Th^ evidence eat^biishe. the peX tetoL^H^ '•
«b8enc8ofM».Maokavfrom h»r «.u«-«- -ku.. j. -..."^l .t"P*'^A,*

/ 1;-

"intq which I entdf«*||JMr. Mackay, came to the
« ine» be sh^t the doWhout wailing for the end oi
" through the door^HK^uld lekve tbe process for
« of , the porch which I diA^ That is ^thai passed
^Ma^MfriMrtber^rrMackay^hwrd wlist TsafdWrSig

aahesaiTt
Itoldbk
tyoil thefloW

y't0'"»ee^

u

^

r

'><J»

^i

truth. .«d the PUiutirXC- ^ hlTl':,"' ^''"rf - ^^-J '-

lea oienseat atfaibhe; ainsi dans c« c«<. la femni<i n». ^'.»*^ 1j • i

Uop de «>» b'en tant pour elle que pour «>u n..ri It.i JmeTitUTS^^i

elle *- .*p.r6e de corps et d'habitatiori. alo« le domicil! ZZ^
«ce«ed'6trelesien» See 2, Biret des nullit6. p. 26 The iPl.rJT! '
not except to the proceeding adopted by the Defe dL^ Ton Te^o.td
of .n .atery^u,. en faux, being the proper course..and wLh aplrs iL^
c«e to be .napplicabl. to our Ballir. r*tunu, undeJ our .ptZ of jlpru"^
«dpre««»pract.ce.generallf adopted in thi. district fVr ^yJ^T^,^
M most convenient and prac^cal a. well as le^al. whatever maywCnC
prac^«, .„ Old France, where^oral testimony L not f..oured,Ue eT-^
1/ ?'~/? 'P'l"'*^ ^^ ^"*'" P"^*"' •»«» 'hose oZ, were C^Z' '
v« ed. It would be singularly ridiculous to require the inJif^l:^^!,

C^«,u,t and Su|e„o|^url^ in no ^ay assimilated with the Huis.ie« IT S5
lT2 ""I*""! ^"f" -»*^'»of -"^ »>«t of motions. noticearbXJu^" -
&o Ac, why should any distinction be made betweenl.e«. ,ei thevlnT;
gjnnces abd returns. ^^ ' "^ •y •*•

-^JhesecondpointfalUwithintherequirement8oftheOrd.ofim t.2.it.3
Wh.ch re<i«.re. that « tou. exploit, d'ajournement seronl {.^.T^^nJ^!!

tefcWyusto whoy the rmwe wa» made^^ Wfthout.th*^equir«i»enUa m«s
verba service most hi^ sufficed, and MOoiSlb of trntioj. «!«*M. I^i

" siste la siffn float on H« p«.vi..:* 1- _-_i . . . -»""•?»«"«»•«»» «^^« que*

«« ■^It.l: I. -!»„•« ;• J « i«-u««» un avenissemeBt orali <

, «»te la s.gn.flcation de Pexploit. laj^fae 4> hM^pie J^na ^L
" JBii 4-«. tieraeuraui wutrrlBrwaini del Wgn«,.el|« puw^fomia^ A«
> «»,m impose, le. n«iat*a dont .. tafpJt.^S^^

.5fe.

«•*

'..ry ,.

^»'

n$

SUPERIOR COUfei; 18<H».

So.ttV. C

"del» copio ^^nt' indiApAnwble 1* ineniiion <]« ootto remlte IV«t miwi: our
•• IVxplnit doUYormsr la prouve do I'aooonlipliMflment d« toiilen Ion forinHlil*«,"
Cour ile'Cw, 3 Noveral»r« 1818. Tho old Fwnolt law undflr the ordinanre of
1867 and the niodorn law of Prance under tho Code dt Proeliure, are entirely
aifniliir in thin piatler with similar nullitioa itanclioning aimilar practice and
. atolsiqn*, all BUHtaining the prinul|.le thnt the ««/,/oi/ ahonlj rt-arh the know-
ledge of, the pdr/i> auiffnie. "II faut que rawigna^n parvlenno ii6ce»inire-
" raent k celuj qu'elle cortoerne, il fktit de plu« que Iq jugo piiisse ftlr^ftornle-
" meiht a«tur6 qu'il en a eu eonnaiwjn.-e ; de 14. la ndcaiwitA iinposieAl'hui&ior
" de remcttra k perronne ou domicile, 7, Proxt. do .Rayer, p. ill." .

The aatno author at a pr6vioiigp,»i?o„74l, observe* : " Lm motife de catto>Hri»-
♦• prudonoo sont 6viden«, ou exige qu'jl noit fnit mention Me la pomoniie 4 qui
"J'eiploit k 6l6 lai»s6 «fln que « Ja j»»rtw as^gn^e ne ee prAsonto pan, lo juga
«* avant que d'ootroyer d^fnut puisse g'sfiwuror par la prouve m^me qiji en eat
•« consigtiAe dan« IV.to que I'aHsignatidn a 6t6 rerhise & ceite partie soil k |.er-
" 8onit« OH k domicile de maniiJre qu'elJe ait pu en avoir connaisaance.." The
party by these leic»l preoautions is^jrotected aijainst surprise. But it has been
objectol that the Defendant's ap|itoarance in the cause covers th^ huJIity, and
that all the advantage contcmpIat«'d by the la«v in her favor, must be'cons&lered
as having been siwjrod to her fro n" tho mere faut" of, her cq^paruthn. This
was the jurisprudence anterior to the Ord. of 1067 and the opinToHTr^Yln^rl, .
Mrttuor and Fontanon were sustained by a generalipraetice. Thay say " roffetde"
" r«journemcnt, dst la ooraparuti»n de la partie «j.>ti||n6ei que rajoufiieinenfrv-
« nul par qnelque d6fec{uo8it* si la partie est compaVii"o-*n yertu d'ic^ij,.et Qst^
♦* parvenu k I'effet et ciyise finale <}Ai luiest propre, cons6qiaemment- la nullit& est
«• couverto et I'acte valable non'ratione citationis aed ratione pruenti^:*\: But '•
the authora object to this jurisprudence tliat nttlliiios cart only be pcoposed aftef •
appearance in the cause, that in this there \» .nothing' contrfljw to the li&tural " '
order of legal ideas, that it i» in conformity with t"heJHj-if.pruJlic©*ia>wrff of the
Ordinar.ce as of the Code de Procedure, ami tliat^pllierwise expensive a;id jtedious
litigation would follow and that Defendants would lay by until nft*- jutfgment
rendered, .when tho whole of the proceedings miglit bo set aside jviih heavy
expenses and great dolay, hc.pito th.-rofore b..tli i^ justicoand in law, " pn rai-
" Sonne av«) moins de rigi.lit6 eif I'on admct lo Dfefemiijnr a venir do prinSe"
« abord dire, '.'assignation est n;ille, etft., ce systemc est inoins positif que coluJ
." des terns qui prdct.tefent l'ordonii|nt;v!. Totitofoisit est con^n ^'unb' fngni^re *
« plus humaine et plus"8e<!oural)l«, et(!.," removing difricultic^: and preventing
expeiwes, and at tho same time keeping wiihjn the conclnsion of thoordinmicelliat
pll such defective assignations wer« nullities, "par(!equ(' ies->i'gleSprcsc!i;ite8 ppur
«♦ lui en a'^siii'er la remise n'ont pas 6te stricteinan«ob<erv6cs," 2 Carre and Chau- ■'
veanv^j^215, and se!^, wljo cite Boncenne^ R .itard and 1 Pigeau,*^. ^Q^SpSce also '

1 Ciirrcknd Chaiiveau p. %4,6, Q»tM8t .37 Vj A proper service ft C8senf3»li^ atk-asW
in,, this case, it has not been made upon Mrs. Mackay, the law is precise as,

Tegkrdl the /emme separee de biens. A service must be made'!,|pon her, thai
anon her- husband is Ingally in"f|}>e*''^" frt''K;n,i !.,>>. a n:„„i.„' rvii.»"j."T« j

\

ipon

IfgaJ'yJpeffijcti ve tolblnd Jtffl 1 Bioeh^, Qhit'da.' Erog^

^ .^

Vo.; PemnaeMari6ep. 291. L' Assignation k deux.ipoux.stpar^sde biena

«4S4ttdi.JK*.^A.>.

ft :

^. ^ ■ ■ .

\.v

K-l"

SUtolDll. POURT,- 186*. -

I5Y

/

doIt4peihedftimJlfWlin,f6trodot.n*«pwcopi*. •op.rde,, «lori mAine qua I.Truu^i^
»iaiiiMc«lH)a.on est fiihoau''flnittiial« nkr—.ur-Ai.. «i.-fc'..-' i..... • .. C".o»u.o..

,.wi..«calioo.on est fmlo w jlomicilo p*r«ei«-«lu clte?un" iiiandalairo eoinmun."
Al o, I Cari* A ClmuyoHu, p,808;(849 bk) "puUque fa copic est d^jitinde 4
•vertir le« parue?&c^ thers-must bQ m. many copiw, d ;mne (/« nuUi'ti, a. partH
thw» the general princlpl0,«n.| in the particular cam, of t\io /^mme ,ipar4e : the -
author, at p.p. m.AOO, deelHre in reply to the q<t^ion of the Buffl.ion.T of con-
joint «»rv,ce upon hu.b.H.d and wife, by one copy, that by " unejurunrude»ce un-
amme, v.a i„ caae of tl™V^«x bang communi m1nen,\nmi> aoli«n h«vii.B re- '
feronce to lnm,d<, to (ommunauU, U.eyjiro hdd in Uw to be une,euUet mSme
per^ne, and the aervice by one oopy i, ^aHd : but, •• bit le. 6pou, aont .6par6.
debU«et.i.'»g,t dans h contea.ation ,oit de bien..,jui leur appa.-tionnent ^
par m d.v.8, «>,t do bions p.rtiouliers k la ferame en sorle qae le mari no figure
que pourJautoriaatibn, dan* ce oas* leum lDter6t. «ont distinct.: le. Jpie.
doivent are wpar^e.." IVost de Royer, pUl8 vo., ABsignation. to the .ame -,
offect; other authorUie. n.ay be a.lded, bul-thew .ufflee, Pigeau'. oiUtion doe.
iiot4.ppIy to tin* caae. Thfi baiiififs return is a f^lHohood and a nullity; and th,
eicepnoD "dla/orme'l must be maintained, which dismiwe. the action wItU

MsSbv,

Ifenry Judah, for Plaintiff...

J^enry ff. ^iirt«», for Dufendimtfc.,
(F.w.Tj -

Action disiniued.

^

,U

; • ttONTBBAL. SlsT MAItCH;i86».

! . " Coram SaufH, J.

•■ ' No. 1671. ' " ° •'■'

Ander,on d at, v.. Tke Mayor Mdernie^ and Citizen, of the dtyof \fo,Ureal

Vthe.U«oT.uch.tr.Ua„a^uaaBuch.,rei:i'Ar;^;^;^^^^^^^^^ '•"--°»«

^^^■''^^^f^ by the Plaintiffs to de.ermine the validity of .
certain cl^iiji Hvanc«ci by th«n, against the Defendant, for certain worL pe *
fu«jr.ed by Ih^ f(fr«.er,Ji|«der « deed of ««s«ion to tl.e bitter of certain txtti^
.n t].e t,ly of M^HItreHl,; the Plaintiff, having co„.e.jted to advance ancfeBp*
the outlay or inc^iEy necessary for the " opening, loveilin,, forming and n.ak^.
;^;S^;t "" ;'"^' whichi..^as ag..ed shoulJ be ...1 thi^ujl L
J^ P^fc.ldant.^ont.8.od three items of the claim, namelv a charge of £l 83 '
Uesticots^ iauiouvand £85 cy. for various repairs to the roadway of

naton o o^Us in any way legally involved in tl.e "opening, ieveli,.. funninff '
and making" the streets and squares in question. f\ '^'"''"""""K

■^Jilgi^JL^MpiLJ^^ ,,„,l.a wore executed mm^

.thUt theyj^re all done under his suporintendance and supervision, and that in .

'^A.

H *

^

■ i;''

*'^

w

IM

lUlPERlOR CX)tntT, IMt,

L

•J^ kit opinion ih«j all Mi aa^r tlio'olMt of work tpocified. And tii* opinion in
O'gjjjjjnj' th«t rMpcet, «inept M r«g«r<l» tlie frno««, was cerroljoraUjii by I lie «vi(ionc« of
two ^^'"('^'^lyiiMNftll^ wIyo w«r« i^aminetJ m wilmMuR by the PIdntiflb.
"Tho (jtlQaHnnHMngineot of tha (lourt: Comiidoriiig tliat tli« mIJ
.^ W»lntiflpW5cp||^Wii by logiil and ■affl(:i«nt evidence, tliat by I)#«k1 of

■wt^^° •g«<'l»»flt»««l«and«xeoHted at MontrMi before MMitra Uo«« tnd bit Collet*
gne, Plll^no Notaries and b«mring date at Montr -al the tbirtiotli day of Novern-
, b«r, on« thouMnd eight bundre<l and forty two, by and between tiie r«pre«en-

Mve^t of the itte TItomaa PbillJpa andtha uid Defeiid«nU, it *«• Hgraed,
tUi. tlie Mid e«Ute L'!iiliipyp|tH^P||uit,)j^ to.4^e Mid Dtfendantt the
,^ necewary kmoant of lamTftr the ccftBtinuntlon ihroujjh the property of the estate
*t.. >|f the««id Phillips of i^rchester MJ|d St CBtliorino strcts; and «Ii«o for tbe
^Ibpenin^ of a oerlain other street intended to be run through the ta'd property
f^ot ^he aaid estate Phillips as pointed VMit in the said ni^roement. ^find also for the
ng and making- of certAin sqnar^ in the line of the aaid n«w strfeJ, and
^thayt was further agreed by and betwe^^tlie said parties, that the said eittate
; Philip* should advance the nnoney neeemary for the opening, levelling, forming
' milking the Mid conlinuntipqa of (he aforesaid streets, as well a^t the new
str'eeta and squares inten(l«d by the Mid agreement to be nftorwaida opened,
<>a tfiiicondition referred to in the said deed of agreement; and it wa« further
agre^ ^at the money before tb# time from the flrat day of Mi^4or-tire^-
VoMa'set forth in tbe faid deed, and to bo thereafter for J||L)aiil purposes
expepdod by the Mid estate Phillipe should bo refunded out bfllio asKessments
to be kvied and collected oi» properltvs situated or to be thereafter situated on ^
the said at/eets^ and that tbe Mid asa^issmonu shoHld be specially and eiolu- "
ai^f^aly appBwi to the payment of the sum already expended and to be thereafter
•Jipended fo^-the mrposes contemplated by the said agreement, jpamely, in the
opanin^, levelling, formin|f1|«d making the Mid streeU apd aqualii until final
tymenr and satisfactiwUiafeof ; and cdnd^dering that the said PlHinliffit have
•stablished by legal aifidenoo ihe'iitM agreement and the aereral slipalationd
above deUif(||bd -tllil they ba«| expcndeJonder the provisions of the Mid
agreement th^m of" two tbouMnd five hundred and twenty-four pound^ nine
4liillHigs an^ eleven pence, with interest on the ma ofttWo tbooMnd t'hrea .

from thefirat day of "
furtlur copjiidering '.
. iirejji^jtion to^is acfRTii fyl«df adiititted that
«h« aaid aum ao eiiperiied ia CDrrectpCler tho provisions of tM Mid i^freem^nt
t^.tha extenr of olio tlioujCiiM five blindrgd an'd 8«5venty-eeve^ pounds eleven
"«billingpa»d«»»ianeeon^^K^pleaded by the said exception that they .

id Hiintifis any Qjrtber' or greater sum,; than
ouMOd ^1% liundred and aerenlty-Mven pounds, eleven

■%

^|>» ,#e"i4ii«bltft»rflfend tit
»■ • \, ^aaid mm of ope*thoui

<"> •!

abjirmgw and fivipenoe, under tha Mvmanta Isnd agr^emento set forth by tha
jjBi'd j^Iaintifs in tlidt; said" action; and that: the items charged l^raily, for
.fencing tliAiuid sjlreets," and secondly, for fnaking thp, wooden side walka, and

thiwHy, for the rapairsof tfa6 Mid streets after they had been made, ara not

-^- —

%

I

•UPKftlOR COURT, 1609.

that under th«provu,on. of tl.o mIJ «greome„r. tl..y ..„„«» b« hel.l li,bl« lo
W and refund to the Mid PWnliff. U.ea«.o„„,. e.pendcd Uvthe^id vZm
for the foncng of ti.e »id ground .o given by the Mid Pl.in.iff. utnlor the dan
pni/«i<conUined in Uie Mid agro«.nent, nnd for the ri-pairinttat the ■treeto

it? ?rh r*'. 77 '"ti""' ^^'^•^'-^ " "«-'-p«^He r'ns

item, of charge not f.lhng within the provision, .nd .ti,,ul«.ion. of the said
agreement; »„.| farther considering that in the abaence of any pro»i.ion in thd
md agreement for the fencing |,f the .tre«t.. the «id ,,.rtio. to the «iij
^^ment arc l.ab e in law to all the oblig,|i„, ...beisting Ltweeo im^edrae;
«^d adjacent propnetorj, and tl.mby liable to er«,t the fence. b<.tw«.n their
•».d «iveral pr„pert..>. by common Contribution ; and further ton.idering that

and m".iZ'r"'"?!"''^T"''"*"*r '"''""« theopening, levelling, fofming
and making the «»,d .tret-tN the Mid UefendauU are boun,| and l.ablo in law
for tl. outlay incurred in .braking, of the aide walk. « a «ece..ary part
Md portion of the .aid .troet., according to the true inteat and meaning of the
^i'JZ '■ ""^/"'"'«' «»"•««"«» t'-t the Mid .ido walk, were no made '
jndcrth*.upermiend«nceofthe city .unr*yor for the time being un.lor the
prov..,o„, of the .«.d a^reemont. and that the expenditure in that respect wa.
approved of by the ..id Defendant.; and further considering that in reLct of
U»« other charge^ for fendng and repairing the roads or .treeta, the wid City
Surveyor h^ no authority in law to bind the .aid IX fondant^ the Mid expenae.
aot being jaHt.leduo.Ier the term, of the Mid agreement; and further conai-
-denn^.hattheMiU Defendant, have fyled with their Mid exception-, a .Ut-
mentofthe MMMmenl received by them amoonting to the aum of £662 6 0
current money of thi. Province, which .trttcment i. admitted by tI.e »aid
P^, to bejuat and correct, and that by the term, of the Mid agreement

« W .T 1 ""^ '"P"'"'*'' ^ ^ "P"'^ ''""» 'he time that anch atreeto
were^ahed and accepted ; Iti^conaidered and adjudged****.

■ . ." «'-\ judgment for Piainlift. V

i?«ttttw ^ 2)irti*i»>, fbr Plaintift. ' ' ^,

vs.
OorpofiMDfi ^

*'■■

Jdltph Pftpin, for Defendant*.
-(I.B.) ^' ■ -., *— I

-\

.'"W?V,

VONTKIAI^ Mm ^AOBMBBR. UM, a»» atTH FBBBUaJ
Coram Badolct, J.
NgbUM.

Xbia OH* ^tgSnSmSot iadg*it^nlhrda«iaiitio« of tha Tiem 1^^

"i

Ckapn^n r^ Clarke, car., «n<; Ti» U*Uy Ufa Inturance A$m)CHilim, T. S. §

/

V

1^

w

:io

SUnmiOR CCITRT, 1S«».

■aa.

\

under ih. followlag olr«iiinil*M», dctatM i. |b« d*,li«tlon »«d« by Mr
lUjrnoliU tlioir iigoiit at Muittronl.

Tl.ttl ..r.0 Hmior.. Mim^>\, to wh(M« «iiUt« lh« Defondmit wm curator, f m-ott
•n I...ur«..co upon hi. life In C'hatlmm. U. 0., nt hh a«m„,y <,f th« C.„„,,.„y tl.o,. •
that tl.« requWt* preliminary pr^A h«d b*«n furni«l,«d to tl.o .««n«y llwr^
and hiKl l,««„ trantniittcHl to Kn^lMnd wboro tbo th,f leu of the Company waa-
that .h« a«,.niy in Monthal wa. il.o . hi«f aff^noy for Cannda, but that lh«.
amount of lh« ,K,lioy wa» not pHy«b(o thoro ; that tho Turn SauU doubled whether
^thore w,w Huy wrvico binding upon (hem, by the more .orvic^ of the writ of
attachment at their agency in Montr.*!, or that th<)r« could bo any judgment
ordt'nng them to pay th« amount of t>ro poli.y in M..ntreHl.
^Cro»>, for the Tien. S«i«i., „rg.,cd that the doubt .ugijerted by thA cf«clafat(on •
of Mr. Uoynold. waa woll fou.rded. That under the oircunutance. U.ore wh. no
wild wrvi. « „,K>n ^he Company, find that tbf 6 being no eonirm^t to pay Button
In MoniroHl, there could be no judgment compelling tho Comply to do ao. ,

Jbbm, for U.e riaintiff, cited 22 Vict, chap. 0, § 3, to «hcw that the aervio*
»l any agency of the Company, br iught It validly -before the Court and within
It. juriMdiction ; and arg..e.| that it could bo compelled to pay here, under the
olrcumi«Uncot detailed in the dot lar/ition.

Badout, J,(30.h Deo, 1889) rendered j„dgnieBt,dcc|Hring the «er*ico«,ffl-
dent an.1 .he attachment good and valid, and ofdaringthe Tim Saiii, to pay th<«
Plaimiff the amount of hi« debt. ' ' '

^.t.^""''.^!' ''"■^"''*f"""'' *" »'^"'a'^« ""v^ on tho Tiem Saiai. but befbr«
the usual flfteo.. day. expired, one Cubilt, acroditorof Sutton, gave notice tothe
I amtitfand Tier, Sa{,i, of an application for tlio alh.wance of an intervention, "
alleging ho inaolvoncy of Sutton', estate, and concluding thHt the moni^i. in tha
Land, of the Tier. Sai.itf ahould be paid into Court to be distributed amongat the
crediior.au marc /e/,m. Tlw petition was pr6.onU.d in vacation for allow- ^
anoo to a Judge in CliamUr., who ordered it to bo heard in term. Btftween
till, order and the <iub.equo..t argumenf, the Plafntiff imwd execution aguin.t the ^
Tier. SftiHis, who thereupon p»id the debt aid coau to the Sheriff; and th«
amount waHhand(d to the riaimiff. : ' ' .* ', '

On tl.o iTtli of F..bruiiiy, the qiiosiion of the atlowancD of tb* Intervention
coming up for iirguirtent;

Jieihuuf, for Cubitl, urgcHl that the c-rtftto of S.itton being insolvent, it^ a^seU
bccnino the property .t,r iu creditors, and should; bo divided e.|»«Tly Among '
them. Tiifit to give o^^e.■t to the judgment in fiivor «f tl.q l'l«in:itr would be
contr.iry nol^Only tothe goiiprd spirit of the Kronrh lux* an onii.iciat.d in tho
CoHlume de Paris, but uIho to tl,0, opinions of^liu text writers ami to a.ljudi>ed '
cav-. Onmd cut. vcd. -.', p. I;t77 no. 4. 1 Pi|<*i,M)04. 2 H,.niys, p, 3ia. Au- '
oion Dm. v.., .'^aisi-Ariiit, p 120, nus. ;J2 and-itSil

^Ahholl, lor IM.tiniirt; (ui^iu-.l that tiicjixlofmeut I'lUUhnt thi- snr ar : oivmtcd a« a
tran'<],»>'tf„ri:i,i\u,\ coi,vc^\/fn tlie4.1t-Ual.>n1iHcfy l^ ll.JlMnintili'. Ti.is in (Imj opi-
niou l.(-t supported hy a.ilhoi-ity,a«idHp|..Mrs firiiilly to Iwvo ^mvltihA in Krauco.
Thcro Wiis a*canfli.:t upon tho point Htidor the old system, which partially
ext^PdaJ to tha nf>w, but thg ffflight of aiithnrity in.iinw drf.i(,ludljt-iM ito fanmti|

m

i-^-i

•UPHUOR GOTO?, m§.

not (n . on^.,«*„c. of .hy •„aon„.nt or pr«.Won ««nuln*| In tl.« .o.!., Nilll
Ih. r«,u , of ,,n„.., ... ,,r.wn fr,.„, th. ...u«r., of the pr,H^,|„,. a 111^^81

Ch.i.vomi p. cap. Q. 1 07 1 el m.| ; »nd 1 06^. v rr. m^^

h« »HH,n M...tU..I ,.na n,lopt«.| m .1., juri.prud..no« he«. ; whi. h, If th,r« bo
•ny do«l.t. rIiouI.I miiIo tli« «|ii(hi ion. „ "« oo

»rii.m iig.oo tliHt fli«re i»„ (m no rcwiUlion.
R..g*r, 388, 1 fl4«. '

16 Vict. cup. 104 g 9. 1ft • ^

aCarr^otChauvenu l»»7tu, Q. 1270 '"

■ Mftl.y.r »^ McQ.rvey, ,„,| MMlaysr 6, L. 0. IloD ur iL,^^

' T^cZlyJt^^^^^^ '"^r'' '•"'^'"'^ •«"' ^«-^ "po" t'.«r"ctt..«ti„

th« fi! / 1 ^ ' "•« J'^'g-'on' "««'/«»< tf,o ,aiH0 arrtt l..d aoonirad

t:^:^'"'*' "'''' ••? -^ '^"^ - »- ^ »»'« ^^'-y >or ;;:;::!

b.v?;lXt 'lirir^'H^"'" «uh3c,ucntly to notico of intervention, it could
r« .• u . ,' ^ • '' '"•""- P"-"' «"<l^'d. «"«1 the Tien Sauin paid «t their

«atHt.B w.n. paascl tu remeclo. an «!.„,« in that renp^ct. i„d could not be held

to a|.,.|y to i»t.M vcnti0U8 of tl,i» dc«Tiptioi.. **

Thatttw mode adop^o I jp4,i.,.i„, „ «hare of the monies .oi«od hy an

HA«»ni«v,J.,(2<J.hFeb\ft^j^60) rendeml judgment (oMhi, Plmntlff «n/ "
-g'unst the allowance of ,he intervention, chi, fly on the croTn h.tthl ' !

-<<6fto« A Baker, for Plaintiift. ' ^'^' "**

CVoM rf ^ffijcrq/V, for T. 8. ' /. *

H

/ f

a;

•".. '■

.t

;■ i ■ ■^

,.i'*"'''

^■ ,!i

;,' ' t"[

..-...■■vf"

' 'i '■% '■'

•; •' *

i"

■■■

iC

ITiTa

•

161

8TJPERI0B COURT, «58.

%

MOITTRBAL, Slat DISOBMBSR, I8S8.

Coram Smitb, J. \
, Ko. MO. ' :

moi «t al., Assignees, vs. The Tim$* and Beacon Fire Ateuraiue Co.

Held.— "^iMt th0 oondlUon of a policy impMlns the penalty of kforMtura ofall rraiMly upon n, in th*
evenior•nyrrMldulentOTerollWR^ is not oonunlnatorjr, but wlU to csnriedou(, if mwIi ^f«^>
"*"" 1 bo proved. ' '""■ ,

The Plaintiffs in this oaa», u representing one Dorral, olaimed- pver £6O0'm
ft loss W fire to goods in a shop tei^anted by Dorval. '\ ' "

The Defendants pleaded, 1, That no statement of loss had been furnished
them ; ajid i, That the whole of the damage caused to Dorval by the fire in
question consisted in injury to certain goods, and did not oiceed £32. lOs., and
that there was a fraudulent overcharge vmade it his clum, which, under the
^'bonditibns of his policy, deprived him of alt^remedy up{||tf<it.

Dorval bad furnished the Defendants with a stat^ent which consisted
merely in an extract from his book* showing his stduk in tradr in May 1857,
his purchases up to February 1858 (the dat<^ of the fire), and,,deducting from
those sums the amount of his sales, less his p(rofit,.and.,th&«mountj;emaiaing
after the fire ; showing a balance which was entitled, "Balance whijjh A. D. is
entitled to claim from the Insurance Co"; without fifserting, either directly or
. indirectly, that the goods represented by the so-called balance b«M been eitj^ifff
^ destroyed or. injured by the fire in question, and grvin^^^o detail of any goods
'Whi^t^en'' .'■ '' ■> ■- . ,1

It Was proved that no gopds were destroyed'by the fire in question ; thiPthe
.fire had only extended over the edges of tworQw»bf shelves, representing only v ■
- a small-fraction of one side of the shop, the goods on whi(^ shelves had all beetr, ;^i

inventoried and valued by persons einployed'by the Defendants for the purr, <'
^pos^ that the damage to these goods, was chiefly caused by water, and ^
amounted 16 oiily about £32 ;'^tbat all the other goods in the shqp were undis^^
turbed oa their shelves and uninjured ; and it fufrther appeared, that, assuming
that the goods claimed for as destroyed, had beeta on those shelves (as none V
others were touched or approaobedJby the fire), there must have been ^nsider-
abljr more goods of all descriptions on those shelved, than in all the rest of the,
store put together, exclude of the damaged goods taken off them, which it.
#<8 proved were sufficient to fill them. ^ ;

I BeUmger, for Plaintiffs urged'that their caseiraB niadeoiit in ievidenc* ; tliat
it was impossible to show exactly what goods they. ba|4>efic|#t^e fire, and un-
reasonable of the defendants to demand it of th«ni. Th^heir'l^ks proved
/^e exteiQjt of their loss, and that such a mode of proof h^^^be^en riarognised as
aitfEEminn tn^ ease of Morieon et at. vs. eeverid Insuraaee'C^mpanies.

endant» insisted that the statement funded to the Company,
"' ' — *■ ■ fire, but only a pretended b^^oe <^ giopda on

anotfato.

^.

\

m

■ 4P

.•*-

■ \ .

\ t

^ '■]

^

SUPEmOR COtIRT, 1858,

^

"y-

« 'V

tet

\pl

* \u , ; .7 *«'«"» . but ia tliia cam, wh«re the fire had been TiDM.i^ii.M^

f^m that, there wa. here a groM and-obTiootly frau^ukni orercharir*. 1^^ " '
«-*;r one of the^condition. of the policy, oauaed it. forfeitan. The3,ro^t; ' .'

to the amonnt of the overcharge wa. c^nclustVe ; and nothl .howj it L^' ' • '

gUnngly th^ .he absurd result derived f«,™ th'e ^.called 5X^:'t iUel W ^^ '

oompanngiu enunciation of the «nount of lo» with the ame3of Svi
"3 ;" ' " f^^rr' P'-'"rt»^-e .mount. i„j^,tl^po«tiwS2^'^
Zfrl T "^ "•' '^'''^''^ "^«'""»' '• ««»P«i"*ith^it which w2

It».uffi<$,entforu,to8howthatite,ist8,io cast the burden of expiliininflTi
upjn the PlantiffiS .„d if they fail to do so their action mu^tSS

A/tfuiw, for Plaintiffs.' ' • , ' :

-Abbott <t:£oier, for D^pdaLnU. .. * , *

S^

<»

VONTRBAL, Sin ItABOH UB».

Coram Badolet,'#.

i^i^^/^rfaiK vs. A«,fo W Jlft.c*e««u, «fe a^ Qarnisheea."

w.''?* P'-intliffok out w attacliment sJie arrSt after jud^ent in ♦!..
buid. of the-gaAlshees, who ^mrally dedared ihat at thrtim«^!J I ^
--M% had nothi-l^in tkeir handl bZ^^^ S^^j™!:^^^*^
dee^tion. were cotrt«t»d by the Plaintiff. ^ '^'^»n<»"t, «m1 their

^!!l> ^"^^ ^'"* '""'""^ H ««>d« «,! a-ignment to McKton'eW

>

^IV,

.*.. iiro»miaed^would enable th< awmXai to

h till Mrhnfar—A^Mfcz— ■>-*-_ 1 ^'.i !*' ^i

^•:

'B-

■ V

■^^^^

J«A-

?.*

164

SUPERIOR COURT, 1859.

MaofkriMie

Tt.

IMWe..

t

^'Mi'-""^

,;^^^:-

.#:•■.

/# - « ■■»■

£2263 169. lOd. was dividwF among the creditors who were parties tjii the deed
of assiii^nment, a silni of £t05 fis. 4iJ. being resfrved for thj; Plaintiff who wjfii

f

r

notapartj; tothedeed nsJiisahareshDuM he beuome a party »fterwfird.H. '(The

paymenU were ail made % not^s of Lovell, and a noie lor ifce sum of JPlOS fis

4d remained in the hands, or within the control of the garnisliees McKenzic and

Whitcford at the time pf the making of their declarati^ms. The note was in

fact pn id need and fyledin court by Whiteford with his answers JoPlainiiflTB

contestHtion, he. then alleging thnt it was all that remained in his handH as

_. assignee, and that he then produced it,in case the Court saw lit to dispose of it.

. ;,The other matters which came up ih the contestation are sufficiently ruferr.ed to-i

".iqi tlie remarks of the learned )(idgc who gave judgment.

Badolrt, J.— In this case (he Do^foiulant a man by the name of Delisle,
bedame involved in his cin-umstanees, and ins«)lvent. Uo called his cr6>iitors
together and asked delay, off ring twenty shillings in the ponnd in- quarterly
payineijts, or to allow his^dreditois^tp take stock to the full amount of their
debts at their option/ Some creditors took the amount due them ift goods from
his.siock, aAd some gave the delay. The Plaintiff would do neither.* Dolisle
.found that he could not go on iafier makirtj; payment to, the extent of f!|Ye
sbiUings in the potiftd, and made an a8«>i^riinent of all bi» etSTeirts and a'^sell.by
deed to McKenzie an<^ Whit.for.l, two of the garnishees, making them trustees.
The Plaintiff did not; Ihink proper to bec<>0i< a p»rty,'1)ut nfeiarly all the «-redi-
tors did.. 'Schedules were^ftHnexcd^Ira the deed showinoj the stsock in (letaili^
as well as the debts duo aiid ^r: f»ih on hand at the time of the alignment,
vnonnting. together to some iE4800. It would appear thj^t Lovell, the
- other garnishee, in contemplation of tliis asxignment had made an oQ'ur to the
criiditurs, to take tlie stock at a valuation, and to pay to each credit^or an amount
* I' proportionate to the' amount of his claim. There was a condition >n tlje deed
that no creditor yas to rec^ivse his proportion unless he gave, .an absolute
discharge. Lovell took all the stock at ten shillings in tlie pounds realizjhg to ,
the creditors teti shillings in the pound and probably a little more. The.,
Plaintiff did not feel himself bound to accede to the Conditions of the deed, ndir ,
would he unte:^ he were put upon the footing of those who had' ^reviouitly -4.
received 6re sfiiliings in the pound. ^This would appear from Yke evidence. :■
The assignees very properly said that they were only Trustees for the benefit of
all the creditors, and refused, to give the Plaioififf any more than bis ^b&je of
the proceeds of the estate as it oamh into their hands as assignees. This not"
being satisfactory to° the Plaintiff, he took out an attachment after jadgm«nt,itf
the hands of MuKenzie, Whileford and Lovell,thegarni6heeB, upol>ajudgment|
he had previotisly obtainejl against th<i DeTendHt. The gamisbees c'anne rig •
and severally declared that they had nothing in their bands of the Defendant^
apd their declarations were contested, the Plaintiff among other tbings^alleging
.'fraud bn their part. The garnishees claimed the right to answer separately,
and held- that tllere should have been three Separate ooBte8tat«>.n8, ^it this
point was overruled in appisal, the Appelliite Court holding that fraud if prolyl. ;
would make the garnisheea liable i^'tdlidt^^ But no fraud hta been proved, tt
fc ihown on Uw eoatwij; that tba bwt tj|at oealA be dwie ftig tba fflWit>.i'~

SUPERIOR COURT, 1869.

— ■ — . ^ ^ . ■ (

totere* .„d coT ' Tk.S S" 7 """""'.«'«''"««'. debt iw,
_v4..<e IT. «*«„,,, f„,gjn,i,l,^ » .•■■.■-.

(H. BO
' * '§'" Ciw-aw Badolkv, J

judgment of distribation. . ; ^^^fe/^y led after preparation of tb||

-jP wo*/ objected that the case shewii wiS^W«,«R-;-Jb' j -.'

-inconvenience and deItf»bicrwoIld ^rSlh V^^^^^ "'^"^ *'"^«'^?*'

allowed. ^ "''' '•esul 'f'tb^edbteftatjon were now,

- *'"*"''» I'J^y mere loce^venience on the other,

T y<Wo« <^^rf/^<r. for Qppn..y^, '• ■ Motba granted.

.Mwhrtan*

VI.

DeHiilA.

„ .A

* •,«.

■' %..

*»

'»

-m

SUPERIOR 00URT,.18fd Am 1868.

,>•<»..

~ MONTREAL, JUNB 80, 186«.
Coram Day, J., Smith, J^ Mondblkt, (C) J.
< . No. IMO.

Mom v». (kartnichael, and Th« Raihrood Cfar Company, Opposgattt ' '

HeM.'-That • oorpcnUor m«)r Iw » witnen j|br Um oorponktion, if it appMn that Iw hu no IdImviI In
tbo rnault of the HiiL 4

i'i

>*'

\

Th* Opposants clnimed by an opposition d ,^ili,cftf dUtrairt oel-tam lumber^
wised -aft being in I he ][)os8e8aion of the Defendant^.

Childs was callMl as a vritqeji) on btjiialf of the corporation, de aSnUttettlHii

the voir din that he Iield slock in ihe ooptpany, bat stated that^^he company

WAS ihsolvenfl^thatr- hia stock was alf' paid (ip; and thiat, under no eiroani-

^^. IJltences <;ould the compitny pay its creditors in full; therefore^ as his liability

/'- '' Y^ limited, that it was of no pecuniar^ iinportance |p him whether fhe Oppd- ^

" .'.luipts succeeded in their opposition onr not.^ ■:-,: ■'■f^-'-- ^■-:y ^-k'

. Hajfj foi' Plainti^ objected tbat the witness was incompetent aa^tt^ittg to
« " aomo. extent a party to the suit ani) ^|i baing interested in the result; and

&ovcd to reject his testimony, an iftfj^^ftion having 4>oen previously ^ken U> i% j\
, «. at'^nqu&tc and reserved by the presidlin^ judge. ,, - • ' * ^K \

' ' ■ Abbott, for ^ppoSants urged that the only< ground upon which he could be
^6X<;Iuded was thiit he.was intereat$<i. .As 9 corporator he \f as not necessarily
incompetent for th.) corporation. Oi-eenlear,.§ 332; Angell «k Ameso on Corp.,
§ 600.) The cases show that co^p^raliprs are generally incorape,tent for the
<forporation, but only because it|niy are generally interested. But Ikej^ are com-'
petont witnesses £r. they have n(^ personal or pi^ivate interest- irt^hie |^operty
holden by the corporatipii. (Ittfireenloaf, § 333; 1 Phillip;, pp. ^firji9n; 4"
Phillips, 46-68 ; A'ngelllfe Araw on Corp., § C52. . r '• , '

.' Day, J, — The only test of the competency of the witness is his inftiisifet in tlie
event of the suit. In this cSM'the tritness can be called upon for no contribu-
tion, evet) for costs, in ca^j^fth^ failure of the OpposatiU^. He opU'r^ap no.
benefit from thtjir succ<'ssj[^.j|^i8 prove I that'tinder' no cirl^ihistiiii^es can they
evei;,ra-ike any return to tj^if'fstockhoJderj. Hu h»s therefoi^e jrfo such intecMt
]n the proceeding befpi^ lJ|ie^>Coutt.aa disqualifies him from .being a witness for

-r

the Opposants.
missed.

The m<>^oin ,to reject hi*T*stimony

(i..

J.,^>f7ay,fotl^\n\Aft:

bolt A Baker, for Oppiosan'b.

c. A.)

the efbre^ be <&it

Motipn dishiii

^P

^J

/..,

MONTABAL, 23bd DBCBUBBB, ISA

' ■ . ■ \

Coram MoNDstiT, (C), J.
No.7M.

Gordon vs. ffemp.

Ci

^^M

HriJ,--^WtH}» iisteompettnt^iBrtheventorof go«J^iwrgitiied«ii< <etdfor «s#s(^

m WNSftlWWB Of VMt UWI'IMJIMm Of Wlf pUfeMW BHimj. W VOfST

nSBSS

.^••^A*

• J> *,.■".

■:':if'

y

■•y'

•%

SnPERtOR COURT, 1868.

II-.

If*

ThiB w'h8 mi action to Kcover £i<*dm fi<l%„„ w i > ' \ , T"

and i!-i7 9a A^ „- v ™<*7' * ' - «• 8^oy., baUnoa ofanaccount f^freiirhl.
and ^37 ?s. ed. cy.*, the price at whiolC certain cooda had be«„ hir-2.T >

nii wiHlnjfne.. atiU to deliver on payment of .u«b price. ' v *

- TLe Defendant specially- denied, having pu.cb«.ed the *bod. and nleaderf

: J^^Bpec.! cjrcumsta,^ i„ avoidance of the .ction. .bSti,^£i^

here io der^.l. as no proorwhatover was o^ered i» snpp^rt thereof "'"'''""^

rt^ cOBiAit.ir-Thore can be no doubt th«t tl.« Pio:^.*!. 't.

WJ.«» », e,n l. .„.,^, u.. price Witl,o„. mfking .r. Sr.; ^f h!
IFow. ao(M>rd riff ta onr .».«ik».'.k. .:.t. • ... , . . vwuer oi me

" V)-

1i^i.ySh^!^r- ' rr ''•V»*» "^'''^nt'-e ^en<Ior. for want of
«W#iy, an.| that being the case it is qui(^ deaV that^e cannot sue for th«
,pnrebaaemo..ey .„a».n-uch a, the price can only be .uedfor "heTtIo iu
h» be,n perfected, and the «ale ia not perfected witbout actu TJi^ T^^^^^
yg no qnesfon raised ^|h regard to tte-«mo«„t%laimed forfrlbt. \Z
inentw.Hgofor that amount, bntthat par. oTPIaintiffVdemand wSlks for
the price of the sale of the goods «,uW be disajia^Td. aM,wl«cH asks for

' ^<A^#i^«4forPli,itfJ* " " ^dgmeht accordingly.

^*6o« «* ^^iT^^ju^ Defendants — -^.^

* **^ '• ,^ . w: 'Up-'

:1

V CIBCTJIT CODJST.
HONTRBAL, 16t». APRIL, It
Coram PtwuT X

r

^»i*.-

«^^"

\^l^f "^ • writof ••^on i„„ed «»der which, accb,d% to the ^rorl.
i^ f «»^y good. .,Mi effects of the Defendant, 4n CiZf.

Iian. Taylor alleging .ha. at ika (Ime of the aeizure i^ey wmiM hi* fZo^^
«nt's) possession aa propneu., ^ that they ^eft |rfLdr*^Sit e^
by him under deed of lea«,. copy pf which hVprpdS *^'^ V?^

W^

#

N.

T

1

:?Tr

■TT

li>«.<,

.i"

,,i»

4

•p^

•V'-

Oona

•rtfUtr.

^T"-

^\

'ii\

1 ■". .i 5'' ■;■

16

CIRCUIT COURT, 1889.

Tho riaintiffA, by their ftftorneyn, declared tliat they did not contMt, And tho
„Oppo8ant ai«kod for main levie of the snikuro with cosUi agarriiit the Plajntiifii'
contending that ho was entitled. to ouch costs oirthe allegations of his opposi-
tion, whiclv was not contested. V \ f

Tho Conrt on the 15th of April gave judgment upon ttie. motion, maintajning
the opposition, granting main levie to oppoi>ant of the seizure, but did ni^j^ve
costs against the Plaintiff, but iCgainst the Defendant.

Doherty, for Opposant. °

Crota d; Bancifoft, for riaintiff.

>

.««•

COTJR SUPERIEURE.

MONTREAL, 28 FEVRlER 1859.
Coram Badqlxt, J.

-'•■ \ NO.10S7. ' M:

Moreau et vir, vs. Lionkrd^'^

Jug<;— QuelasigniAcstionet te r»pport dos interroRatoifeii, lur fiklti ct articles, penvent wrol* lieu
avMt I'inscriptlon dc U| cause sur le r61e dos enquMM.

. - " ■■■:■ «:.;, ,'" .,■ „;',T - .

La contestation en cetto cause a\^ait ^t6 Ul^ KUtr I'inscriptibn'ictafaiox le let"
juillet 1858.

Le 12 Janvier .1859^, le Defendeur sur I'inscription jJef»i«,doau»«rii »0X
procni'eurs des Bemandeurs sur ^'inscription de ftiux '^^l^^inKit inecrit o^lte
cause sur le r6le des enqu6tes pour la preuvt) le 26 Janvier 1859. .•^'

Le 27 ddcembre 1858,le8 ^mandeurs Bur I'inscription de faux firent dmaner
line regie pgur intq^rogef le I^i^fend^ur on faux sur fi»ils et articles lo 35 jftnvier
1 Sft9, cour tenante et vtw2 voce. ^

Lo dit jour 26 Janvier 1850, le Defendeur fit ddft^ut, maie ayapt ensnite com-,
paru dans un^e des divisictis de la Cour Sup^rreUr^ refiisa ^e ri^poodre an^
interrogatoires pour' divcrsos raisons, et entr'iiltres parce(|Ue la cause it'^tant
inscrite sui^ le T61e des enqu6t6s qu6 ])ouf le lendcinain, il lui 6tait difficila de
aavoir dans quelle division dfi la cour il devaii se jpT^siqnter etque ce n'^tait que ■
par accident qa'il s'Stait tronv6 df^jissla divisioft'od i^avait'd^'appel^.

Son honneur M..lf juge Mondelet, president do Ja premid/e Division de la
Cour des Enqu6tes, ayant-rfUvoy^ la discussion de ce^ incident ^ randienoe ; lea
parties furent entendues in btinco le 17 f{)vner 1859»et la cour par Bon' juge',
ment ordonna au DStejidour ^ faux de r6pondi% aox interr^town.
^ Ouimtt, Jforin. el Mdtchand, avocats des Demandeprs en fatix. '" - J

Za /VenayeW PopiA, avocats 4a I>6fend4ittr <m &QX. . , ' ,

-.*!..

*f ■"

(PKS.Ii.>

^ri

^^, ,.

*

."■■"

~

\

■-'^■•'■\

/■■

^ .. ■'.

\-^>-";-.. .■ ■_.-.,

■ , -fT^ . -' ■

•,. ■ ; , ^ ■■ -■.■■

■ :: ."..•# .

■„■

^l

-•-■' . . y

•■•

V

"

---- ^ ■ "

• (,.

V

ir "

•

"^-'^''

.*». :■

",;''»

«

,

»■' ':' ,..-*■ ;

.J-'::'

' "' ' ■ .-3 „.

i-^

."./■■

160

;, MONTttBAl^ IITH N0VE1IBI^B,.188«.

*^*'""" Badolbt, J., «nd • SpooUl Jury.

Wood « o/. V,

i^HD,

& A memonndum Ht tlin foot of the uotn ii»li<»H..- 1>

tie. between th« orig)hMp.rtIc. ^^' '^'"<"' " "*«»• «•»••'• not.ffeoted by mv equl.

ft. An exchange of negotbriile p»per l» suffldaiit to mn^i»„«^ ^.

vlueof the p.p«, he «ort.«^ «»«*«» |o eonrtituto e^h Prty to anchMoh«nge. .holder for

This case was BubmiUed to a BDe<«i«l J,.«, ♦I. " W ., ,
presulin.. Hi, charge f"lly exhib r^J fac7;n;r" '■ '"""" ^*°*"'«^
by them; and w«8 asTbltews ,_ ' ^ *'"" ^"*'>'°"» ^^ J"' «>"«e<i

, ""©BNTlKMEir or Tfi« ifoRV Th!o -„»• • . . I

: »«>Ur, of defe^tVthE^^^^^^ I'Tl^' u' ''"* '"•^*'^- -<»

MutuH (n«ffiahco Company of NrVorlc ' ^ '° *^' "'■'^'' ^^ *»»« ^tlas

Irt date of the dontfacts ffe rS^t'? "" ""'' ''"'^'«"^«^ '*« '"H-^Siy

yai,.*^Uhout;o«^Jet«^^ !-!:!^V>f the notes to

llith their ftartioipatfon in the aWi^Sds til n ^^^^ ^'"°"'^«« «»^ '

thV nojes Wew <riv«tt for «n,mJ«mf!f '' ■ ^''*"'''«nt «l«o alleges that

.nd^is off tHo^wSri^r'S?^^^^^ «f ">« named^essels.

mount ^^^^^r^ifin^^^T^^ '

go<xl eonsi^erHtionf and BeoondlT^' JW» holder^ of the notes for a ^

lection.^ win ^s,j:^t!tj^^^^'^r ""/"^ " ^«"' '-^■
Findples of law connected with^hSr iff L7 ^' ?' ** '""^"^'"* "'^
that th, AtlHaCo^pany was incor^reS JTs^L" t^*^-ti«o,y the fact
-«tiri852. whe„ it weit into opeXt^^'^^fe'l"!^ ^T'*^
the State Ia# incorponftitig it. Tk-t »i. U. j;!^ ! ?" "^lOtreiiient. of
^pital to be pdd up, but ImMrnZJ^, ''^'''^ * "*"''*^ or <«sh ^
of moOO dollar*; which We^irt^^^ ^or .naarance to the amount '
P^mium note, we; receit<.l by I^^J" r^^" '""'''" '''^^ ^

^<^^:;

J* 1

. [

170

SUPERIOR COURT, 1860,

Wood lit. al.„

/ !

tb« oupital of tho Company, and Ht tlio same time tlie «uUcribor«' socurily for
and to each otiior in the Mutual CompRny. Heing to established, it coni»
inenced operations in 1862, and continued tb<?m uninterriiptt-dly niitll March
1866, when |t was suspended' by tiiu effect of an injunction. In the interval n
very extensive businets had been carried on. Policies had been JKflued covering
risk* to tho large extent of 8 or 0 millions of dollars, and losses had Iwen llqui-
> dated and paid to the extent of two niiliions of dolUrs. It is for the Jury to
determine whether in this statement of the Conrpany's establisbment and
offah-8, the fraudulent and "bogus" character imputed to, it by tho Defendant
is correctly applicable to it. The tostinmny also showeil. that the"Dafoi«3'ftrit
effected insurance with this Company tlirongh tlioir agent iri tliis Tcity on his
three ve^els, — tho City of Montreal, Cily of ManclicAtor, and the Pride" of Ca-
nada,— by valued policies for the period of one year, mid the several pretAi'iima
were respectively settled by the Defeiuianl's promisKory notes, pAyable jtojik'^
-^ order of the Company at a year from date, enph no!e having a HieinoranduDi
at the foot of each of the nanie of the particular vessel insured, for premium of
which the note ^vas given. The notes now lu!)^ upon are proved to have li«ii«rt
for the premiums of insurance npoij^llio Pride of Canada and City of Montret^i
the policies for which expired on tlie 20th and 2 4tli of March respedivcly. Tlif
v\ memorandum has been particularly noticed in the defence as in itself tending

to limit negotiability of the notes, and requires a passing remark. The roei»
mention of the particular subject insttccd as a memorandum on tho. tjota, you
need scarcely be informed, can only be ti^r identification ami assistwijfein the
keeping of the account and the settlement of the loss of the pAtioqIar subject
should it occur, and cannot in law servo to limit the negotii^ion of the note, in
fact it forms no part of th«i notes, and it woutd s^em'tbat it could have no other
' . * - effect thanto fecilitate the adjustment of each particular loss, and that is alto-
^ X gether unconnected with, the question of the negotiability or non-negotiability
of the notes themselves. It is- likewise stated in tli^ ^vidence thirt the Com-
pany having occasion to raise funds for the purposes and fxfgencies of its busi-
^ ness, mla^e arrangements with (he- Plaintiffs, through its Finance Committee, to
,^. * raise 30,000 dollars for four months upon, the PlaintiflV not^and -for wBich
"^ '^^"^^^^ ]tAt»T were to be secured by a transfer's collaterijl^ccurity of Company^
effects and assets consisting of notes for premiums heU^ by the Company, and
which were transferred to the Plaintiffs^ to the .amount of ab<^t Sd^OOO or
^4,000 dollars, the excess bein^ intended to setitire the Plainti£b for their
idvance..;»This excess has npt been bbjccted uS; but among those notes so
transferred wJte the three n^tSs in suit in this dHuse, with others of a like de-
scription'.to ^complete the seeurity.^Tbe evidence states^that l|e Plaintiflt.'
notes w§re cfi-counted in due oourse Iby the Coropsiny, who received the pro-
ceeds and applied them to their own pin-po|>e8, and thfit tUs mode of raiskig
the reqmifed jsmaunt wjAS adopted, on aeqpunt of the facility affoided by the
^ Wwn f^otf'ftllftJing and established credilif the Plaintiffs, who were engaged
'^.^n an extemiti!.groceiy;l)U8iBe88"in New York, rather than in discounting those
tii^^ whit^ being'mad§ by struigers, snch at De/endant, and in favor of in-
,|il|aiicecom|Hffliei^^hieh woe. then generaDyio bad odor, w.oiild not beao

V

» '•.

■V"'

IT

.1 :

i

-4^~

-^11 -ttiSL-i'r

*'

•-4^

\ ■ ■

A -,

.1

» • „ ! , '

^ '

y-^,-i,T-:tf

■_<K\-

.■■'*,

tH

; -V

,{f

%n

#.

prove. w.et..er...^o.;^f|>,::^^^^ "'^ '^'^ "-

It IS proper hero to TMt to «., p«i,,t: «.Ubl«h«t by Um l,w that .h« .Hh.
.criW pr.mi„™ note. giv«, in ..Jvanca f«ri„»„r.„ce ^101;^ V.t tt
security of tho«« .uU.fi|„.ni. Tl.«y were «o ■ ' hut even S!! ' ,

lull V.lia,ly ,„,! olh^, ,„, p„„ ,„ ,^^^ , J U,, |„,1,^| „„ ',

h. Company.. ,„.,„» ,„„^„ „ .^ i»„™„,w«ri'SA °
What tuml, It majr be askel. whm the Company oxDfl«t«.I »« ,^^, •. ■

^ .J.|K,n their premium notes, i„Hte«,| of miug ,be canh L rlh ' ^**

tbe available paper n ha1.d Sin-h „ i . "^""""Sr "»oney upon

"hence tbe legiaL^Te prov i^n auf,:-. /trtta^^^^^^^ 7Z:'rT^ '"'
«.i«m notes, baa f.rr„«b.l the Pbiintiff. wi ,: 1^1°^^^^^^^^^^^^^ P^

. sary application of the orJin*rj^ notes in hand to mIT k" ''"' '

ments of tb« Company, as all Xnilar notes a d Irr^ij^f aT"' '^^^
character recei^pj by commercial institutions^" trwroftbeit«ir'''"'
in like manner usually applied and used. The no^rs 7^^^^^ ""':
payal,letothoord.roftheCompany,«„d become negoy'^Wbl^^^^^^^^^^
d,ffemj ,„ th.^t respect f,«m note, not Buyable .6 ^order, wS «uL^ '
assignable, are «ot so assignable as negotiable paper ThI v2, "^i^^*^
. objeet of the negotiability of s„.b paper Ire JoltS in tl prL^H^c
jon on .tsl«,e to pay to otd^r.-^hiph immedL^y renders it^sHab^ tZ
the world by indorsement. The Defendant flfeVen to hi« ,.„? 7 ,
general currency by.indomement, and the lawwlnTnLt , "'""' *

iimit hPs «abilUy. The t,«„ jj f^;-}-^^^^^^^^

effect (Jn the 4th September lass Iv,. J it .•- I ' '^'^ '"*<>

your own r^^^. of Z ^^^J!fZt^
" spj-ing of 1856, aad at the dato.of the traLacfion « quesuL iT r'" "
•„ dence that the Companjr badl.ffered lo/sesl., IBuJ^^^fT- '" '"'

monwith the other insuran^ffice. in New io'k^hfnt!!!.' ^ ' '" ^
.the AtlH. also, but that it oof [.d.it. bus niU VUho't Sttl' T'*"-
^undoubt^lysolve^; g.«t f November ,8«5 the C^^^S'lS::?

.ncfe...ng. the,r subscribed Lck or subscriptic^ notes,Vre i^dfced "1^
their affairs to be exammed into by a Committ^whose acrntiny re^ul^dT^ '
reported surplus 0/127,000 dollar.; that to reZ^^all possiMe';; t^^^^^^^ .
this^por was submitted suU^.quently, to » second^iommittee who .trnS
any po^ible doubtful apiount., and reported a surpl£ if SOOOotilW^^^^^^
Uiereupon conedence was .uch. that news«U«rip,ians to the ^oui^So^OO '
dollars w«re taken up, 8oin«(^ of the di^««i«~ »»--!— .- .^^.T!? , 300,000
amount of 6,260 dod^rs each ; that thfli|o,
. in addition to their previous inyestmontHb

a

|»aying in additional note, to Ibo
them»elve«,p«id in 3,»60 d6ll»n\

sui'ERioR coimr, i8««.

"■**'' ■f

V

Rnd lii|ui(iitli

'.Wnaftrjr 1^86;^that thct Oomptn v con tin uc<l l)ii«IneM
'li«n ft WttH «ttn|M>nd«il by tho IiiJiinitiM||^'|'liei»o fnoU »Ut<jd
.hjl^rtoy, th« 8«cBfet4ry of the Company, a Vitneiw Ucfjf^^u, have \mn (m-
roKoial«.ll)y evi/iencf of Mr tlart, tbo Company'* agitnt in Moiitr^al froSn
18fl4 until tho BHrpongfdM in 185(1. lie wiys tliiil thu potnpanyV tran-wlionl
6Ven Hi (hli city woro •Jico'oiiiiij^ oxtoniiivo, and tliili nil lowid had boon fully
liquidi^tc'd up tf) January 1860. At* mutter of fact, it f>» for you to oolloct from
tho evidfiK'o tito posiiion of tho Company nt tlie timo roforrod to, mid e^peeu
ally in tho «arly part of Si-pt ember, when tho, trarmfer of the rtotoa wuii made.
As t» the Inw of tflo mutter, no Icpjal prosuinptioa of fraud can bo jjnflicrod
from them ngainiit the Company. Your npprooiation of the evidunco will «ii<
able you to charaoteriziVtho tninitaiition between the Pluintiffs and tho Com-
pany, an<l will alno enabl)) you to dot<ririine whctlior it Wim a fair bnninoM
transaction, and whether the PlHintiff* took the notes bona fjte and. for a good
consWeration. It is for you to paw npon the trunnactiorJ referred to. But it
is strongly urged, (lint the notes w.ro not in f.ict lcg;illy tr^isferru,!. to t^e
Plaintitf*,— that fhjir transfer by Tracy's indorsement wan iiaauthorized, and
pflcscd no right to the Plaintiffii against tho"pefcndhut, the maker. Bearing in
mind their negotiability, ^hcir having been assets and property of the Com-
pSpy, and their delivery to the PlaintiffM in fullilmont of tho arrangement be-
tween them aild tho FiriJince Committee by which the Company raised 30,000
'*""'■■■■" (!'»« Plaintiffs' acceptances, the potes in hand shew that they were

jraoy the Sciyetary, and he has told you that he did so by tho
President, in fulfilment of a previous arrangement mide by the

Mtteo^^nJ with the knowledge of tho Directors and trustcfcs of
t; that he had frequently made such endorsements under their

that they adopted his act*, which had never ben oauctioned by
them, rind that moreover tino funds received in consequence of the completion
of tho transaclion had been received by the Company witJi tiie knowledge bf
the Directors. It would seem that if the acts df the Secretary wera unauihor-
ized, it was for ilie Company or ils receiver to complain, and not tho Defend-
ant ; liut it is propd that neither ever ol.jected to Uio indoraoinent. In all the
ordinary business transactions of individuals, they are necessarily tlieir own
prmcii)als^and, upon any di8|*^|o arising, a direct application made to them an
prmcipals settles the diflSculfy ; but- with coiporation*, their very nature and
establishment acquire their affairs to be entrusted to and managed by agents
under varioiis denominations, whether by special or by implied authority, be-
cause, as is well known, the presence of a (afgexstock proprietary to carry on
their ordinary ttransactions from day to day is an utte/ impossibility. The
Atlas Company had a Finance Committee foivsuch operations; they bad alao
Directors, wbilat the President aud Vice-President, with the Secretary, acting
ander their direction and authority, were the executive and ministeriiU offioera
to carry on ito general operations and busine8a.f The general principllB of law
regarding agents, is, that whatever a man, acting^r hiinsen", may do by him-
self, he may do by his agent; atid that every d^aliflfcation for bontraotin

^^:x

tfae Agent on hia own account will not disqualify him from contracting

aijthe

,i.-r

^#■

^ BtJPBRlOlt COURT, IMS.

'Agent of •nother, «Xff»n7b«!nf ooniidariHl m «- ««. W^t^-A. ^ i
nior«ov«, n.,.„r«. no particular form oT«!^/of^J£ " "Y, '*'
H^ni to <fr.^. ....,,,, ,r .ndor,, bill. „, TJ. I rto2,!i U "!: "f ?f

«n.,gener. or i«,.M .uthority : .«^ (i,.«„:: I.: UtT J^

SMtbority. f>it)»Hj»|<l

<«i«w tlie Hocre'trjr

f«i. »w pro l«c«'<| bjfli*

fi*«|tj«nily ind..r#^.4

li«»M oflbel»r,«ivI«B^,(

inittee, ami with tiM| (i

10 PlainUflV notes rm^ftdr

<]uenl cocognlljon otHn agflnt'i aoi

tho ..ptnt, wlion hu acted, niMum«<.

WM duly appointed nuol, |,j wriitj
him, had no npecinl authority to ii.d
such paper, and indorsed these nott'i
in fulfilinont of tlio arrangement made u,,,
knowledgo of tho Director, who notiad

— bTt a.m!!l"* ""' 7-P''*''"« »«-/'— .^ .no rui.m, note, r^,^.^
by U.e Company ,„ exchange for tl.6 Cwmpmy'. ««eta endor^^d Wthe S

hi^^<VZ!:l "'" ■t-"'"":"^'*'-'"" '^ ^'^» -««"» ••«. formerly efS^

8. 0 And thmfi.re from tho fact that th. cpnfidential cle k ULI f

- tomod to draw diaiik. tn, t\\^^ .i". j -^ "«"•"• cierit uad been aecu»-
him to indo,^ a.5l ^tt nh' f «"* l^-t-^oo they-hM Authorised *
hi. enl«!™T;. ohe>-^»n«Unce. bad te««ited money obtained by

.^ h. endon.ng tho.r namo. » jury.wa. held '^kfranted .l,r inferrin^r tha^.S
r clerk had a general a-.thoritykto Indonw." Now thi. ii tt.„ u! '^ .• ■ * '

,.\vidu.Kbutiti...id.ottoLh to c^rjzt^^::;^::^^^

: ' h^d .n.lbrmer Ume. in England with re^^t to ,bo^ X^aZ^' T

n.«d law of thi. P^vince and of the ulited Sute, ri^^^; ,1't Z^ ^

the old ruleofEttdish fai which hdnT/ *''*"' ^^^''""•y '"""acHonn; and .

Wpoww. See also BrOHghton v. Maficbester Water Work. GomJIn!^
b^AlA. 1. Prom the «broMtio»of tl.« «M ,..i •» <• n i . ^mpany, ».

with the o«liiui.y th«.«UoiuL and ^TZ ^ r t 7^.** ""^"^ ~
th.1 «m««.. 4 !r"^^"» r*^ °<»»«| *he offiue of caebier of a bank enablM
^ nlv^r^ OB ti^^y^on. iitlK^ ifce ooBe«««„,e of ^C^

I f

f ::s-';^^-

roniiw^eei/aaotii. k.

"W^!

/

■ % .

. \-

m

L

■ t

■ ■ .■■<

. ■' ■ *

1

/ ' ' ■ .
r* " •

*.■

•

■1* :

- — ^B 'l^fer —

* '• „

!■' ■ . '

f.' ' ■*■*'

(- - . '

.r , ■'

r- ■ V.., •'; •:^.:"J

•••

■ * T

• ■■ ■< ■

%

1

/■*,»,

t .

/.

•

- .'■,;, ^^V ■■

•t

»

!'■".

•

/ '

*

^-I'^fc*!*--

•

•

!

■

/ >

', ' "

V'i

/

/

,« #

1

■' ■ r

Jlk '

1 f "■ ■

1 1 .

/ '

^^^.''.'\

-r ^r

■ '%,

1 ■■,

^^^^^^IhLu^'

.',•■'

•

■ ' ''

.. ..!■•■-...■

• '»

^H

M

r' '* "i

' ^

m

■■■[

^^^^^^H

^^^^^^^^^^^1

^^^Mi

■♦

' IMAGE EVALUATION'
E$T TARGET (MT-S) ,

V-

^

m'

^

{./

m.

C/s

J

1.0

i.i

11.25

\.Sr.

I^|28

110 iir2.o

12,2

iJ.-il.6

■f

-*

»

■?

1-'^

./

ast

• riua^tji;«iAii

_Saences
Corppratia

.*

.■ti'i

'^^

<-

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580*

(716)879^503

^!\ ^ \

w

,f y

\

^^

<^

•^--^-'

.i

Is

[n

«;

f *

/

K ■

#

lilL

T «;

174

SUPERIOR COURT, 1868.

\Voo<l ot at.

VI.

'«qual)j powerful. If the act, the etnlorscment, were within the power pf thc«
Corpotation, the law makes it fall within the law of ratification and confirma-
tion universally applied to the conduct of thosa in Jilie* relation of principal and
agent. This principle applies equally to^orpor.itions and to natural persons.
As already observed, the latter are their own principals ; but for artificial bodies,
such as corporations, they can only act 'by and tlirongh their officer?, who, in
one sense, are their agents, in another the corporations themselves. As to perr
sons and things outside of the organization of a corporation, to all the world
besides its own members, the acts of its officers are its own acts. If the dealimr

. be within the powers of the corporation^ mere silence ahd^K^quiescence will be
sufficient in many cases ; and when the corporatioA^receivea the'proceeds of a
transaction done in their agent's name and by his assumed authority, there
exists the highest possible evidence .of -its approval. 1 Smith's Appeal Cases.
N. Y. P; ; Byles on Bills, pp. 23, 24. The law therefore does not interfere to
set aside sucl^ acts of agents, but, on the contrary; lends the sanction of its
power to,give effiect to them by the ratification and confirmation of the implied
authority.

There only remains to c^serre upon the claims of set-off male by the De-
fendant; first, for re-msurance effected upon his vessels, and, second, for the
indemnity from the loss of the City of Montreal. The policies for the City of
Manchester and the Pride of>Canada ran out in due course, atid the notes given
fbr their premiums were earned. From the evidence it will be seen that the
A-insurance could have fcovered a very few days only of any of the Atlas poli-
cies issued to the Defendant, — in fact,^nly'17 or 18 days for the City of Man-
chester and the Pride of Canada, and about 35 days for the City of Montreal.
There would appear to be no doubt'of the loss of this ship, which sailed from
Liverpool on the 3d of Apri* 1856, and a part of her was picked up near New-
foundland before the 20th of the satne month. She never reached her port of
destination, and the amount insured upon her: was 6,000 dollars.- The Defen-
dant claims to reckon the loss from day of sailing, according^to \he law laid
down in the French Ordonnance de Commerce, which cannot be true as fact in
all cases ; but the English and the American decisions concur in sayinc that
there is no fixed rule as to the time after which a missing ship should be reported
to be lost. It is in all cases a question of presumption for the Jury to be gov-
erned by the circumstance of each particular case. The authorities are Kester

-,v. Jones, Ey. d; M. 383 ; Oohen v. Hinckley, 2 Comp. 61, and others. It will
be for the Jury in this case to satisfy themselves, from the evidence adduced, if
they should deem it necessary to allow the claim for set-off. But upon this
point it must be remarked, that the notes sued upon were for the earned pie*
miuniB on the Pride of Canada and the City of Manchester, net for that of the
lost ship; that t&ey are in themselves sabstantially distinct contracta. .It is
also in evidenise that the re-insurance indemnity on the lost ship was actually
p^d to the Defendant after the lote had occurred, and previoos to this action ;
the promissory notes matured before the policies expired. {Being in error as
to this fiibt, I corrected it to the Jury, stating that J^e^notes ran ont with the
policids bearing the same date.] The notes soed on in this case, however, ina.

\^'

v.- ■.

■y'\ \

SUPERIOR COURT, 18«8.»

175

ture.1 before the policy for the i/uianco of the City of Montreal had run out.
The lois would of course be a drf.t by the insurer to the insured ; but the au- •
thorities.inaintain a material, distinction irf effect between an indorsement biforQ
and after a bill or nqte becomes payable, namclv. that an indorsemeiit bofoie
the note becomes due passes to^tho in.ioisee a ^rfi-ct Vitle to sue upon the bill
or note, wholly free from any claim the acceptor or maker lave upon-tho in-
dorser; and that even if it beoraes paid before it bec.mes due, and His then
endorsed over Jo«ay?rf€ for value to another person, the indorsee m&y sue the '
acceptor upon it. 3 Camp. 124. If it be indorsed after due, the in.lor«e«. takes
It, subject to all the objections ami equities to whi.h it was liable in the han.Is
of the pei-son from whom he receive lit ; and wl.alvver would le a good do-
fence to an action on it by the inJorser.-'will be a- good d, fence in an action by
the indorsee. Where fraud or illegaiity is established, there is such a presump-
tion of law, that there was no consideration, ih^tbe Plaintiff is bound to rebut
11, because in sulh oases the law supposes that ibe original party, not being
himself willing to sue upon the instrument, has handed it over to another to sue
upon It for his bone^. This presumption so raised by the law, must, as ob-

8erve<l, be rebutted by the holder showing aflBimatively that he gave value

You will determine by the evidence adduced, if ihe Plaintiffs have done so.
• The ^yhole case, facta, and law are with you for your consideration, and it

wdl be for you to give your verdict .upon the two questions submitted, which

will be handed to you in writing for your consideration.
The Jury fouhd ib accordance with the pretensions of the Plaintiffs upon

both the questions submitted to them; and the Plaintiffs having moved for

judgment upon the verdict in the February Term following, the Defendant

moved for a new trial before the Isame judge.

Mont, ^. 43i, for Defendant, urged that the charge was erroneous in holding

that the fiotes in question were negotiable.

Abbott, for Plaintiff, supported the ch^tyge of the Judge in that respect. .
And on last day of term fais Honor declared, that, having given the cale his

best consideration, he Was unable to conclude that ne had in any respect errec

in his directions to the jury, and that the motion must be dismissed.

. Abbott d'B<,ker, (or m\ums. , Judgment forjlaintiffs. /

i?o»c cfc J/bnAr, for Defendant •

'{■J. J. c. A.)

The following authoritiesVere cited for the Plaintifft.

As to the negotiability of the notes : Revised Statutes of New York, p. 693 : 1 Com-
stock, 371 ; 4 Oomstock, 61 ; Byles, 49 ; 4 Bingham, 283 ; 1 Smith's Rep. 47 j 1 fimith's
Leading Cases, 44^. .

As to authority of Secretary of Oorporatton to endorse : Dunlop's Paley, 166 6
note 1 ; Story on Agency, § 60, 62, 63. • , .-i i i

As to implied ratification by accepting the benefit derived from the transaction and
otherwise: Angell 4 Ames, -267, 8, 9; Curtis v. Leavitt, 1 Smith's Rep. 47, 137; Em-
mett V. Read, 4 Selden, 312 ; Howland v. Myer, 3 Comstock, 290.

The Defendant's counsel cited the following to show that in the absence of precise
evidence as to when a vessel was lost, the day^he was last heard of is taken as the
data of loss ; a Amould on TnsnrsncB, 79fl j Pnthinr, Asgntanor-liro. laa.

Worn) «l

VI.

Slaw

»!..

4 -v -

I,

7':

.< N-* *;■

^ » K

I'o , couR Da ba:^c .i>E la reine, ib^o.

Blf APPBL.
De ^a Cour puperieure, DUtrict de Montreal

MONTRBAIi, 3 MAI, 18S9.

Coram Sir L. H. Lafontaine, Bart., J. C, Atlwin, J., DcvAi, J,

& Mkreditb, J.

No. OB.

PinsonwauLt, (Demandeur en premiire imtance.)

Appelant.

XT

" ■ <■ Dvot, {Diftitdeur en premjiire instance.)

Intim6.
Jiigd,— Que la premesse de rente (qui v«ut TCDte) quolque Te»l*Lte est oWigiaoif*. (1).

Lafontainb, Jiigo en Chef: Le Demandour Miigae dans sa declaration que
le ou vers le ler Mai 1865,il avait loa6 an D6fendeur les terrains dontil s'agit,
et cela par conventitm verbale, ^(j^ une ann6e, & compter dn dit jour ler Mai
1855, a raison de £20 de loyer ; qu'il avait 6t6 de pins conTenu entre le D6-
fendoiir ot lui, qu'A Texpi^ation de la dite adn6o, il vendrait afi D6fendeur, et
ce dernier aclieterait les susdits terrains, pour Je prix de $1000 dont $600
seraient payables comptant, et $500 un an apres; que le D6fendeur" 6tait,
le ou vers le ler Mai 1856, entr6 en possession des dits immeubles en vertu
du dit bail et promesse de vente verbal*; que le D6fendeur ti'ayaiit pas, A
rexpii;ation de Pann^e du dit l^ail, jsavoir le ler Mai 1866, ni depuis, re
les conditions de la dite promesse de vente, et paye au dit dfemandeupM^
sommo de $500, le dit bail aurait 6t6 Qontinu6 par taoite reconductioS!
uneautre annee expiree le ler Mai 1857. ' . "

Puis, le Demandeur concluait & ce que le D6fendeur ftt as8ign6 k cimparal-
tre ]our voir dire et declarer qu'il 6tait d6chu du droit d'a<5heter en vertu de
la dite promesse de vente, et que le dil Defendeur flit coltaran6 k rendre,
remettro et abandonner au dit Demandeur sous quit^ze jours'du jugement &
intervenir, la jouissance et possession des lioux, avec U outre les fruits et reve-
nu8 depuis son injuste d6tention, le tout avec d6pen8.A

Par une premiere exception peremptoire, le Ddfendeur r6pondait que, dans'

le CDiirs du mois d'Ayril 1855, il avait achet6 dbiPappelant, par convention

verbale, les terrains en question, et qife i'appelant s'^tait oblig* de lui en passer

^ titre valable aussitdt qu'il en serait requis; que cette vente avait 6t6 faite pour

• le prix de $1000, dont $500*devaient 6tre payees danslecours de l'ann6e 1865,

etle reste en quatre -ans par paiem'ents annuels de $126, le premier desqnels

devait s'operer en Mars 1857 ; puis, qu'en vertu de cette convention verbale, le

dit Demandeur avait livr6 le dit emplacement, maison et b^timents au dit

pefendeur qui en avait pris possession en <^ualit6 de propridtaire, I'avait tou-

j^urs occupe et I'occupait encore sous ]a foi que le Demandeur lui donnerait un

— ____^ _^ '■:'■*:

. 1(1) Vide, 8 Vol Bevue de Legislation et de JBrfapradence. paw Ml. Gwian * Kchette.

.1 %'

COUR DU BANC DE LA REINE, 1859.

I'

111

titre auMitAt qu'il on .erait requii.; "et qu'en prenant possession le D6fondeur Ptn»«n„r.uU
avaitpay6comptant au Demandour In anmmn J« ^TA.. T.i^.r . ... ^w.

avait pay6 comptant au Demandoui^ la somme de £30." Le D6f«ndenr «II6-
guait encore qu'^umoyfln do paiemonfc. »nl,86quent«, il avait bien et duement
acqaHM^Ia moiti6 du prix de vente; et le 31 ^ars 1867, il lui » foit faire
par notaires, vno Rommation de lui pnsser litre lo i^ndemain, et do venir ce jour-
14 Chez le „oU,re pour y recevoir en n.6.ne temps le pai.ment 6chiant dans le
^ an mois de Mars. .

Quant aux paiernents actuellement prouvis avyir ito fails par le D6fendeur,
la preuve ne les a constatds que ju«qu'4 c^nourtence de la somine Je |375 se
composant de t2ob, payees en Avril 1856, avant la pri'se de p..ssos.i.,n'du
D6fendm,r, do 176 ^.ayees en Novc-mbre do I,, mfimo ann^o, et de $(00 pnyoe.
et artides^^^" ^'^'' ''"'/*'''"'* ^""^ '** •Jftnaudeur dans «es repon^e, sur faita

C'estle premier Mai 1865 que le D^fendenra pris possession. Le De . an-
deur le dit lui-in6me dans sa declaration. Mais il ajouto que c'cst « en vertu
du d.t bad et ^roraesse de ventb verbaie." C'est invoquer deux tltres qui se
combattent mutuellement Si c'est en vertu d'une promesse de vente que le
ueiendeur poss^de, alors il possode anirm domini pour Iui-m6me, et non pour
le Demandeur, Celui-ci le declare for,nolle.n.nt dans un des premiers chefo
dtfsa declaration, lorsqu'apr^s avoir invoquo son propre.lltre d'acquisilion du 2
Mai 1864, ,1 dit que ce tltre a 6t6 " suivi do son ex6cution legale, qu'if a 6t6
duement mis en possession, et qu'il a 6te ainsi en possession ju.qu^au Ur Mai
1866. ^ II ne 1 a done pas 6t6 depuis ; <jj|9'il a alors cessd d'avoir cette posses-
«on, cest qu elie a passd en d'autres mains, celles du D6fendeur, non 4 tltSde
iTORtaire, <:ar, dans ce cas, le Defendeur n'eAt en que I'occupation, et la posses-
sion proprement dite eat continue d'etre ^n la personne du D^mandeur. Ainsi
I appelant a .nvoqu6, pour rendre compte de la possession du D6fendeur 4 partir
du ler Mai 1856, deux tltres qui se contredisent.' ' F «r

Que s'est-il r^ellement pass^ entre lea parties?, Le D^andeur a all6«u6
1 existence d une pro.ne«K, de vente, mais il diclare dans son factum qu'iU'en
a pas f.,t la preuve. II a .ussi all6gru6 un bail verbal qu'il n'a p«spronv6 d'avan-
«ge. De son c6t6, le D6tendeur dit qu'il y,a eu r6ellement vente. Dece quo
le Demandeur n'a pas fait de preuve de sa promesse de/vente, il ne s'en suit bas
que son assertion dans sa declaration, de I'existence d^tte promesse, ne dXe
pas profiler au D6fendeur, et lui ven^ en aide pour ftSlir les ^noncis de son
exception, relatifs au fait d'une vente. Que I'on re^rque que la promesse de
ve te que le Demandeur » .nvoqu^e, n'est pas cette ^rte de promesse de vente,
q^ est up.lat6rale, la seule, comma le fait observer' Troplong (1), dont se soit '
^^ Pothier dans le chapUre intitui* de. pra^Jde fl^ mais Wen
cette an^resorte de promesse qui est synallagma/ique, par laquelle I'uhf des
|artie. sV,bhge 4 Tendreet I'autre 4 achetermoye Jnt ui^rix ^„venu,dlt2!

U4). E,^etle Demandeur alWgue, danssa declaration. qu'il fut convenu q.ue lui
vendra,t.au Defendeur, et que celui-ci acl.eterait de lui les terrains en question.
II est vrai qu d ajoute que la vente derait avoir lieu 4 I'expiration d'une ann6e.

(i>'DetaTenttr,-iio;Ti<[. ' , "~

■ .--■■ ■'■■. .. ■"•■ ■ -■ 7- , .. ■ ^

\

i-

I:

\'V.,

'f^>>

178

COUR DU BANC DE LA REINE, 1889,

PluRonncault

v».

Oub<.

' .(

•.*aK--

.'^-''.■'

Ma.8 est-ce bion Id oas f. N'y a-t-il pas eH au contrafre venle parfaite et consom-
m6o du jour qu'il a eu livrd la possewion au D6fendeurt C'e«t dans los 6noii-
c68 (le la d6daration et dans Ics r^ponses du Demandcur sur faits et articles.
<]u'il lant eJicrcher la preuvo de co qui s'est r6ellemoht pasB6 cntro los parties,
Daii« 8a ddclaration, le Deinandeur reconnait qu'il y a eu convention de vendre
ot d'acheter, que c'est aprds cola que le D6fendour a pris possession ; que le prix
,. de l» vcnto avuit *t6 fixo k tlOOO, ce ,dont convient le D6fon'deur. En r6pon-
dant " oui " au second interrogatoire sur faits et articles, lo Domandeur aadmis*
dans lea termos do cet interrogatoire, que '♦ durant le mois d'Avril 1855, ou
vers lo premier do Mai de la dite ann6e, il «tait en»r6 en march6 avec le dit
Defendcur de lui vendre" Ics tei rains en question, " et s'otait T«ndu a cet effet
ft St. Jean aveo le D6foiideur choz Henry TagaiiU, 6cuier, aTocat, dans le but
de lo coiisulfer sur la mani^re de passer le contrat de la dite vente." II est vrai
quVn ripondant au 3e intorrogatoiri', il ajoutei " La raison pour laquelle je
suis all6 avec le D<5fendeur chez M. TuganU, 6tait pour savoir si le contrat, au
cas que la dite vente aurait lien, ponrralt 6tre fait au nom def ipousp du D6-
fendeur, car ce dernier voulait quo le contrat fftt pa8s6 au nom de son fiponse,
et non au sien : Monsieur Tugault.a rfepondu'que cela ne pouvait pas se faire."
C'est avant do prendre possession, que le D6fendeur paie au Demandeur $200.
Co dernier I'admet dans sa r6ponse au lie interrogatoire: " Vers la fin du
mois d'Avril 1855," dit-il, " le Dofondeur m'a pay6 unesomme d© $200 comme
garantie du loyer; car sor cette somme je devais mo payer de mon loyer. pour
le temps que le D^fendeiir oc<||perait la dite maison et terrain, et le surplus on
la balance, je devais la'hjmettre au D^fendeur, lorsqu'il quitteniit la dite mai-
son et \> dit terrain." II est assez curioux da^voir un locaUire payer d'avanc©
tout son loyer, mais il est encore plus cnrieux de voir celocataire qui n'anrait
tout at plus k pajer qiAin loyer de £20'pour une ann6e, mettre d'avance entre
los mains du locateur, une somme de £50 pour garantie de ce mftme loyer ! Et
comme si cetle garantie ne pouvait pas sat^faire le locateur, on le voit encore
recevoir, dnns le coura de la mftme ann6e, une autre somme de £43 158 ! Et
le Deinandeur a la bonhomie, p<5ur ne p^faire usage d'une autre expression
de nous dire que '« cette somme n© reste pas entre ses mains comme pay4e en
d6duction des diles mille piastres, prix de vente des dits terrain et maison " \

En r6pondant " oui" an 8e interrogatoire, il a admis, dans les termes de
cet interrogatoire^ que "c'etait apr^s avoir 6t6 avee le D6fendeur cbez le dit
Henri Tugault, qn'il avait ainsi mis le D6fendeur en |)<)sse8sion " ; ce qui a eu
lieu le ler Mai 1855, temps anquel lui le Demandeur admel, dans ^a d6claratioB,
avoir cessd d'avoir la possession. , \

La promeaso dont il s'agit a done 6t6 suivie de tradition et de possession.
II y a eu consentement reciproque des denx parties sur la chose et sur le prix,
prix dont ujie partie a k^ re^ue par le Demandeur avant qu'il efttlivr* la chose'
fli."f *"^'^® P"*'** *^*™ '® *■**'"■'' ^® I'antt^e qui asnivi cette livraison.^ En ce cas,
iry Allien ^ I'application de layipille maxime. La promesse de vente mut vente,
maxirae qui pr6valait dans rancienne jurisprudence fran5ai8e, ©t qui a 6t6 6ri-
gee eii texte de loi par Tarticle 1589 du Code Napol6on, lequel porte : " la pro-
messe de vente vaiit vente lorsqu'il y a consentemept riciproque des deux par-

**

1l3t

V- :.■

r

4k^r

■ ■ii--.v.^ --vv-j^^s ^:^-^--E*^* -.^ • :\ ■

COUR DU BANC DE LA RENIE, 1889.

"1

no

I

j . ' ' ^ «OUR SUPBRIBURB. / '

VONTEBAL. 28 MAI ISSO. ^

Coram C. Mokdbl^t, J.

. No. 167. -'^ X

OuirMi «fej(/ vs. Smical t& aL \
Jug«.-<>in»e pMtle m doMler ne pe.it MrAfoJn, quolq^

H 8'agi»ait de deux motions, fil>u„e par Isaac Bourgufgnonj Pautre bar
Charles Lap.erre. deux des D^fenA. ayabt ehacune po«r obit te faire revi
seretrenve^.eru„e^d6cisio„ rendl^par.Ie Juge prJdant i'^lp^ U i
Mai 1859 qu. avait d6clar6 incompetent, c^me t^moin, ChnrsoKe Sen6cal

rs-rdt • ""• '"""' "^ *"""'" p" «" drXftdt'i;

Boutre, pour les moteura, dit que cette action avait pour oMet deVaire an-
«uler une vente judiciaire de meubles ; qu'elle 6tait diri^de conLinqtel"
nes, dont deux air«ent pla.d6 eonjointement et les frois autres s^par^meSt ; que
le seul hen commun entre les d^fendeurs, d'apr*. la dAclaratfon. 6tait Pai^L
quetous,^ rexeption d-Isaac Bouiguignon, s^^taJent concertos pT eSr
une vente s.mril6e et franduleuse d'un article mobilierappartenanKl^x DeX
denn.,quelesconcluaioiuid6 la diH^lar^tJ^n „« dom«nd.S«nt awun^^daL^

VH,

Suit.

mendcur St cette vc.n,e,et die. ouJo. II poss^de done Lw rfLnf. II „e ^^•

rln 7 TT\ *'"" "" "^"P*' * ''•" ^« '°°«t«5'«. dans le sens de la 16e

section uu stiitut (le 1855 ohan innAj^»4 :i i » *"o

l«i fatre Papplipation. "^ ^^""^ " "^ ' ^"^ ^^^ ^^""'^"^'i*' "*"^ ^«

Lit'^ritH r " "'«"""*' '^^^^'^"^ ''^"' •" tr«is«olionr„t ii
fc agit aurait donn6 ouvertni« nu proBt do lods et ventes

^tre'cIfinnT '''^"''" ''"' '"^ J"f ™^"' <*« '« ««"' ^^ P'^miere instance, doit

Le |.gen.cnt do k Cour eu Appcl est motiv^ comme suit :

La Cour aprfts avoir entondu les parties p¥ leurs avocats sur le ,n6rito .to

grmfs d;, ppel et le. r^ponses 4 iceux, et sur le tout miirement delib6r6 :-
aux i„T . ? ^ "^^f-" '•' '" ^^^'«™"»" du Dempdeur et de sos riponsi,

Tu s ioTT T7" "'* ** "'"'" 'i"* '« Dofendeuraacquisleteriiinen
que t.o„ en vertu d'uno pro.nesse de vente saivio de possession, etque cVst en
ve tu de<,erte pro.ne.se de vente, et non en vertu d'un bail i lo;er, ^u'il , cette

ZT'^'nT ' """"'"■■ "'"^ *'"^'' *"«"°« -"»« <»« d^<>l^«n- 4- droit,
acq sau Defendeur en vertu de la ditc promesse de vente; que. par c<H>se-

ra^H*"- i"'*T* ^:' '''"•''' '^ ^«'"'^"^«'^'^ <^« - *^'«- -ec d6pens.
.1 y a b,e„ J"g6 co„fi ,, ,„,j5^ j,,^^^^^^ ^^^^, ^^ .^ ^ I .

.Cartter, BertMot .fe Pomi«.,«., avocats de I'Appelant. .
CAcmer, i>onoo dk Dorion, avocata de I'lnUui^.
<P. E. 1.) « 7

#

^t

.— -._JV.,.

A^^

180

COUR SCPERIEURE, I8M.

a

Oulmot

eux en pL.dnnt H^.par«ment A r„ctio„ ; qu'il y «r«it p«r co...ic«ont .ut.nt
d ^nj ancH que de co,.te.Wio,« a6par*e« ; qu'on »upp«,„nt que touL U .I*fe„-

/* r6pondre que pour hn-nift.ne de« fait. aII4Ku6» dan« la .Jtchira^jon.

^ un fZ rr" '''!!"'■ •"'?"'"• '''* '^^'"»"*'«"'« out produit, comme tmoin..
un fi6ro ot .Ic« parcrrU,,nu dogr6 ,,roMW, do Iroi, do, I)*5d«„r,. et Ior«,,u*5lJ

M le Ju«^B„dgIoy le« diclara co,np6tont^ po^ d6po«or d«««M,.» contostalion.
I 60S en re Ic. Do.„„„deu|^ ot ceux do« DefondcW aveo le«<^,Vl. .-oh t^moin,

CcBdouK derniers avAict r6,Iam6 I'applicatio,, do .e <,a'ila «,n»id6rftient

«n dcB D6fendo„rs.-4^irel avait dd.I«r6 „'»voir aucun int6r6t daSi\ conte,:
tatiou l,6o cntro los Dc^mndcur. ct les dil» Buurguignon et Lapicne. \

Son Iloiincir, lo Jugo Mondolet, ayant ,l6olar4. co tiinoin incQ.np6tentVobjet
do cos deux motions itait do fuirc revis.-,- cette decision, et par une ano^Hie
do notre lo. de judicature, c'ost an mfimo juga que I'on est fof«6 d« domaScr
liDfirmation de ea propre d6oision. Lcs motuurs d«maiKient aa juge miela
intorm6 do corrigcr co qu'a fait le mbma jugo moins inform6. \

Le principo^q^o porsonne ne peut 6tro t6moin dan» sa propre cause, n'est
aucunement contoHte. Le temoi, Uproduit n'est pas partie daas I'instance muc
entro l^s Demandours et ceux quilio produisont 811 6tait int^rewfi, il en strait
autroment, et lors m6mo quM! ne ^rait pas partie au dossier, I'int^rfit I'exclue-
rait. S'll existc d'ailleurs aucun dpute, sur le fait de ri«t6r6t, il parjflt 6tr'e bien '
r^glo, en France, que le t6moin doit 6tre entendu, sous reserve, et que cW au
juge du fond, h determiner sur sa competence. Le principe g6n6ral est qu«
tout t6mojn est idoine et competent, jusqu'A ce que Ton justiflo d'un motif d'ex-
c!u8ion. On ne trouvo n«ftle part je principe d'exclusion rdsnltast du simple
fait q^e le temoin est partie au dosiier,— le qui est bien different «lu princip* *
qui exclut une partie, comrae temoik dans «a propre csiusei' i' v

Dalloz, Diet. G6n. Ve^temoin, n^s. 0, 65, 62, 7a.

— Do do do Additions Vo. temoin, DOS. 'SS, 72, 82.

— Code deprocedure, art. 284.

— Greenloaf on evidence, t. l,no8. 360, 389, 3Q0. '

—Taylor on evitlence, t. 2, noB. I!tl7 et 1218.

La question a ete formellemeiit d<icid6e par un juge de cetfe coar, dans on
cas moins favorable que le present. Co fut le 2 Octobro 1866, dans la cause
no. 676 Garth vs. Woodbury et al. Uun des Defendeurs, centre lesquefc on
avait pris des conclusions solidaires, fut admis 4 deposer, dans I'interet d« son
co-deftindeur.

Austin, pour les Demandenra, souiiit la question, en s»appuy«Bt sur les motif*
qui avaient guide I'Hon. Juge, lors de sa decision, & l'enqu6te.

Pkb curiam.— II y a 6 Defendeurs, Chrysologue Senecal et F. Daniel ont
plaide conjointement. Jean-Bte. Senecal, Chs. Lapierre et Isaac Boui^uignon
ont plaide separement. Par la declaration des Demandours, il appert que les

COUR 8UPERIEURK, 1889.

181

Dem.n<)«nn MonAr«nt de toat« fraada Imm Bourgulgoon. LWion • pour
obj«t d« fnire metttt de c6Mi U vente p.r jortice, faif d'une pre... d'imprin,<H
^^ A cylindra, pour OAOM de fnude.

Chrywiogue Ajn6ci.I e.t produit par Im«o Bourguignon et Chwle. Upiem.
Interring* .ur le vottHlire, \\ d^Sclare qu'il est int*re..« quwt A lal^Am.; n.i,
quil n • Hucun int6ra dan. I« contctaUon *lev6e cntre Ic» De.nandeum et le.
autre. DAfendeui*. II est k remarquer que le. D^fendeur. no lont pa. pour-
iuivi. oonjointement et .olidairement. r i~

1 J''."",*!*'^ •PI'")'* ••"• «« q"« tout* penonne eat t4moin idoine, k moiD. que
»Io.na,tdAclar«nnco«,p«tence. If'on . dit de plu. que la maximo incontc
taWe, que nul ne peut 6tre tdmoin en .a propre cauw, n'est p.. applicable k la
quertion Bctuelle. attendu que Chry«,log«e Sen^oal n'e.t pa. propoe* comme
^oin dam « propre cause, mai, bi,„ uniquoment .ur la conte.tation enlre le.
Demandeur. etW deux Ddfendeur. Isaac Bourguignon et Charle. Lapierre. On
se.t fortement i^ppuy6 eur I'injustice qui r^sulterait da nfu. d'admettre ce
• limoignage. pu.i^u'.l „« tiendn.it 4 un Demandeur, que de mettre en can«Jr
Mn. raison valabl^, ceux dont il serait de son int6r6t d'Acarte^ le timolgnaire.
Quant aux autont6. tirfie. de Greenleaf ct Taylor, il est 6»ident qu'ellea ne
peurent guAre rocevoir d»application. dan. notre .ystAme. En Angleterre et
HM Elats-Un.^ derant un jary, il peut 6tre praticable, de m6me qu'au crimlnel,
dobt«,n.r de.u.t«, la d6charge d'une partie, et de la ptopowr et de IWendre
comm^tfcmo.njd'ailleur.danfjceBpaym surtout depul. plu.ieur. ann«e^ I'on
«e«tconeul6rableinentrel4ch6de la rigueur que I'on mettait jadi., k excluro
certams t6moins. En Canada, I'on n'en est pa. encore rendu 14 ; et comme la
cause dont II sagit ici, n'en est point uno oommercialo, il importo que le. cour.
de justice aient la main ferme 4 faire respecter de. prinoipe. dont la .ageue e.t
coysTie par IV^ip^rience de. siiole., et qui wmblent ne devoir 6tre miconnus.
quautantque Ipn aurait la certitude que le. homme. Mrii aujourd'hui plus
bonnfetes, plus v6ridique. et plus resp^tue« envers la ^aiHtet6 du wralt,
qu .r. no 1 6ta.ent lorsque le ginie, I'experie.^ et la sagesw de ceux qui onj
pr68id6 4liM>romulgation des lois qui nous iJgissent, ont prudemment 61ev6
une barridre qu'on voudralt renversen ®

Quant auxautorit6s tir6es du Droit fran^ais que I'on a citAeiH elll. vont 4
^tabhr de. pnncipes en fait d'int6r6t, qui ne sent pas en question, car il semble
^apr^s le simple aper^u des fait. dan. I'espAce actuelle, que la partie prdpos^e
n> paj dan. la contaatatioB sur laquelle il est qae.tion de la faire entendre,
cet\int6r6t qui dwqualifie. Ain.i k ce point de vue de la question, il ne paral-
traitWquele t^moin, si (f^Uiit un t6moin, et noo une de. partie. dans la
cauMi iilit inoompitent

Dankla cause de la Banqne de l'Am6rique du Nord v.. Cuvillier et al I'on
avaitfaitconfesserjugement4la partie (Maurice Cuvillier) que I'on avait pro-
pose et &it entendre comme t6moin. Cela ne veut pa. dire que I'on a eu rai-
fion d en a^r ain.i. Cest une explication et voil4 tout. *

Dan. la ^u*e de Garth v.. Woodbury et al, il paratt que Tune de. partie. a

«t« exammM comme t6moin. II n'e.t pa. ici question de criliquer cette d6ci-

"'"^* J°«f <!"» * «J«»« ce tfimoignage, a exerc6 .on jugement comme

«ion. Leuiv

»i ft cni dM oir^Je fa»»

OuluMt

I^iJ'

m

*?

,^;,. ^,

m

(HiiniH

T

COUR SUPSRIEUMG, ISM.

V

II 7 • encore un« autre cattM. «'o«t cello de Dorion t^ Worknuin et *l ; nub

- «Ile eet touto diffircnto. L« 22 juill«t 1848, Collin., une de. ,,.rti..., fut ...!•

».or. de c«u.e et le 22 Jenvler 1840, il fut dAcUr* t6moi.f .•omp^ten^ n'iunt

pw int6roM^. Ain.1 il ne pouveit |>«. 6tr» roj«tA, ooinnio partlTi la ckuae. it

ne r^tait plus. • s. •

Eiifin dan. la cauM actuelle, il paralt auui 4|ue le frAre de Cliry»orogtie et
Jean-Bte. 8cn6cal, (.avoir Bun^bo Scndcnl) ayant Mh prwiuit cmnine t<imoin,
por io. Deniandeurs, aur le. conte.(ation. de. iMfijndour. non [>a(enU aveo le
tAmoin, objection fut faite par le. DAfondetins.ur motif .le parent^, et le t«moin
fut d6o^ competent par Son Uonneur l« Juge Badgley. Cette decision va k
«Ublir,Tlau. reapAce, la comp6ton«ie du timoin quant k la ebo.e dont il Atnit
queMion et qu'il pouvait Atre lAmoin dHOs la conleatation de. d6fendeur. non
pnronU ; inai. o||e n'affacte pas in soub «,uo«tion dont il e'agit ici, o'e.t4-diro «i
In paitie peut Atre transfomiAe on tt^raoin,

Ain.i done, en pr*»onco de. ar^umont., d«« nutorilA. et do. principe. invo-
qu6», npparalt la maxirae, que la partie ne peut 6tre tdraoin dan. .a cau.o.
En vnin«e rejete-t-on lur co que cW une oonle.tation .AparAe ; toujour. faul-U
en rerenir k .o demander si ce tAfnoin e.t par|ie au record.

Au re.te, il vauypieux ne ranger du c6t6 d« l'ina*luiiii8ibilUA, c'eet dans les
pnncipe^-at Uisser 4 la Cour d'Appel, k rectifier cette dAoision, .i elle e.t
erroniJo. La dAcision du jugo k I'cnqufite, rejetant le tAmoin conune partie,..
doit done Atro niaintenue et lea motions rejetAoa aveo dApena.

MaeKay dAuttin, pour Demandeura.
Jioutre d: Daoutt, pour DAfendeura.
(J.D.)

Motiona rejetAea.

■r--'-

MONTRBAL, 3 JUIN 18».
Coram Badolev, J.

• " No. 161.

LA HfilfE CAUSE.
Jug<.-Qu'uB«jp«rtle M doMier, miOi non lnMre».6e. peut 6tre t^moin. (1)..

Lea DAfendeura J.-Bte. SenAcal, C. SenAcal, F. Daniel, et Cha. Lapierre
ayant pyoduft comma tAmoin, leur co-DAfendeur laaac Bourguignon, obje^lon
fut faite k aon audition ; maia I'objeotion a AtA rejetAe aur le motif qu'il n'Atait
paa intAreasA dans la contestetion issue entre ceux qui le produiaaient corarao

tAmuin et lea Demandeura.
(j. D.)

Objeetioft r^etACi. *

N. B.— The dQcision of Mr iwilce Badglejf is in a contrary sense to that of Mr Jua^
tice Mondelet, at p. 179.

COUR 8UPERIEURE, 1859.

IM

MONTUAL, M iVlH vm,
i Coram Baoolit, /.

No.m.
iffoMon d Kjr. vs. DueKtnt <* w. '

Lf de»»n(IeroMe comme h«riti«re o,t I^gatdre unironelle do Jowph Oumou-
in aon pdro, ot comme cmionn.ire d« so. deux k»u«, rocl.n.«t p«r «,ti«n p«tl-
tolre un inimoubia qui av.it appartenu au dtt Joseph DuroouliD. '
La d6fondoro«iso a oppos* 4 cotto action.

lo. Que par son lo«tamont Jonepl. I)u«,oulJn n'avait Mgtti k la demandenmsa
ct 4 w. deux scBurs que so. bieni meuble. et non se. immeuble. ; que comme
l*gat«ir« elle n ava.t aucun droit aux imraeublo. du,tesUt«ur et qu'elle ne pou-
vaitrcclainer I immeuble en question 4 litre d'h6riti6ro do son pAre, vu qu'oll«
avait ainsi que ses «»urn occept6 le legs qu'il lour avait fait par son testament, et
quo nul n,».peut 6tre h<5ritier ot I6gataire d'un d6fi»nt on mftmo temps." (U
20. Quo Joseph Dumoulin et C6loste Quevillon avaient donn6 cot immouie,
conquot de leur communnutd, 4\ Vincent Dumoulin lenr fl^ par acte dn 8 juillk
18^, moyennant cortainos charges estimdeH A 2000 livres; que le mAme jour e^^
Araison de cette donation le donataire Vincent DumouHrt s'6tait obligA do payor
2800livros4l'acquitdosdonateurs, ct qu'il leur avait transporC6 una somme
de 8200 livros qui lui Ataient dfi par Joseph DumOulin *on frAre.

Que cos obligations quoique stipulAes dans des kctes diflferenU de celu! qui
contenait la donation en Ataien^ nAanmoins le prix et la cause et que ces charges
cxc6daiont la valour de I'immeuble donn6, en sorte que la donation du 8 juillet
6tait une donation ondreuee valablo sans insinuation. (2)

80. Que rimmeuble donn6 6tait nn conqu6t de la coramunautA des donateura /
ehacnn d eux Atait considArA en avoir donnA la moitid ; (8) que I'acte du 8 juillet
1850, avait 6t6 enrdgistrd du vivant de Celeste Quevillon, ce qui valait insinua-
tion pour sa part d^ I'immeuble donn«, (4) que' cet immouble «t»it ontrA dans
la communaut6 do biens qui avait AxistA ent|H^-l Vincent Dumoulin le dona-
taire, ct qjie par la dj^olution de la communMlfa part dp dit Vincent Dumou-
m 6tart .Achae 4 I'en^int issu de leur manage, en sorte qu'elle ne p<»ss6dait que '
la moitie de I'immeuble, dont un quart provenaitde Joseph Dumoulin et Tautre
de Create Quevillon ; qu'4 tout 6v6nement la demandorosse no pouvait obtcnir
qu un quart de I'immeuble, c'e.t 4 dire, la moiti6 de qe qui avait 6t6 donnA bar
Joseph Dumoulin. ^

M. lo juge Badolit : Joseph Dumoulin n»a I6ga6 4 la demander^ et 4 sea
deux soenrs que ses biens meubles, mais dans ce pays nn (estatenr ^ut disposer

RiSlrf''dl'n'J7. '"'"";""'»" *• *• P- ^'l' O-yot B*P- -oir Donation ^ IM 2 col.
Ricard dss Donatio. t.lpp, 254 et 368, No^ 1097 St 1101. Bouijon t. 2; p. 12*, tit.4

(8) Pothlsr, Commnnaut*, Nos. 48?, 644, 646, 648, et 649. i

(4) 15 Vict., chap. 93, see. 4-. -_^- \

■:*■"
•j • {

■11

i ■

\ ^'^\

m'

■ft" «-

y

s.

IN

oouR supbrieCjib; isaq..

par UMMDtnt d* toua ■«• bi«na et <|a«lqa'»it iU en Pr»nc« l*inoo>np«tibiliU (J«
<pulil««<l«l^p^Uln^ota'li«riti«r, 11 MmMo qn'iul, I* mftmo p«nonn« (Hjurrait
6tro All in6ma tompn l%tUir«) dw iit«ublM «l Ikiritier do* immoablc* dont 'l« "
tMtati'ur n'l^Mit pu dispocA. li o'wt o«pflndiint pw u«cuM«ira du d»t«id«r c<tl«
quMtion liaf&ic^tta (jaum actiiello. L'iraraeublo Aonai v«Ult Anviron 7000 livroa
lort d« Ir <|o*«lini», «t l«ii chargtM tii«intionn<iii>a diOta I'mU d« don«lk)n «jouU«r
4 In Rointniii do£iOO livra* (r»iw|>ori6e^o iii6me jour par Vinoflnt-J)uinouliii k
aon \ihn «ii ooll« «1« 2ftOO (ju'il a'6Uit obligA d« p^i/flr'^pour lui *ui b6rili«ra
8«n«oi»l, «xMd«l«iit Itt valour d« rimmeublo donnd. II Ml vmi (|uo Im ordon-
nancea d« ^Vw^ «t do 1731 Hnunicttont touU-aMoa don»liona, m6m«t l«a <lonationa
on6r«iAtm 4 k foriiiMlit^ d« riiisinuation, mala par U jurJaprii<Jence cca dorniorca
«n.^t tM^oura klk diap^rtaiea. Loa Auteura oxpli(|ueiit que l'iiii>inu»tH;n dea
dooatioha on6r«uaoa n'aal rvquiao, quo lor-quo lea ohnrgea no aoiit pwi »ppr6-
cinblca en nrgftit /

L'action dua doranndoiira doit 6tro renvoyAo anna qu'il aoit n^OHaiiire d'eia-
Diiner loa autrea queatiuiia aoulov^oa.psr lea d^reudeura.

AntioD d6boutAe.
Ii-<t O. Lajlamme pour dumniiihut*.

Ch«rri«r, Dorion «ft Dorian pour d^fondoura. '' i

(V. P. W. D.) ' ■ > '

MO

,v

lAL 80 >UIN IBM.

Cb^J^UlRTIIBLOT. J.
^^^ No. 17».
OrifMin vb, Lafefriirt.

-■'-CI

Ju«*.-Qu« la 7e-olauM de Vteuk Vlo».. chap. M«. no ■'•ppllque qu'aui nntM TiaffftrM ttipultM dam
dM ac(«a de doiwtlon antre tIA, «t non a mIIo* onHw pmr MUment -, «t qrt« cm d.trnl<>n« n'ompor-
ton* pM d'hypothdquea 4 renolntro dm tim Mqu^mun do bonnn fol. »1 rimmeuble nut flu dtei.
Kn6 et ip<>oUloniont •ffooM nki 1« tottuneot, pour une lomine d'aivent d4termiii4eoonr6raonieiit
a la olMie t8 de I'ord. 4 VtcL ch. SO. , ' "r

Lo ler dAcembre 1842, datliorine Ca«abon dit Bidier vouvo GrAgoire, fait nn
toatament et I6gu6 A Joachifn Gr6goiro et Joaoph Simon Ordgoiro aea deiw fiia,
deux torres y ddsigfties Hiti^ea i. St Cuthbert, k la charge de logor, nourrir et
entrtftenir la demandcrc88€| d'une mani^re convenable. Ce teatament a *t6
onr6gi8tr^lo21juilletl84l^ Lea lAgatairoa rofuacnt de lui fournir son loge-.
inent, nourriture^ct entrelien ; de 14 action bypothicaire pour £100 contre le
d6fendeur, tiers ddtenteur de Tune dea terres lAgu^es par Mrae. Didier.

Le d6fendeur rApHnd que le 31 Janvier 1849, il a acquia par 6vlnnge I'iml
* menble pour lequel il est poursuivi. Que son acte d'Aohange a iU> enregistrd
le 6 fevrier auivant.

Que la demandoresse n'a aucune hypothSque sur sa terre pour Paccomplisae-
iqent des cfiarges et obligations imposies paf Mme. Oregoire 4 sea ligataires,
' parce que son teistament oe oontient aucune affectation sp«oiale de la terre en
question en favenr de la demandi^sse, et qu*aucun,e valour en argent n'a M6
assignee 4 ces charges, de mani^re 4' affecter cette teft-e en la possession d'un
tiers acqudreur subsequent de bonne foi.

•■■■■■■. " ' - -A..

• I

"X

COUR SUPKRIEUUE, I8t9.

Iff

' r. ?ll * J^"' '"•"' *"" *'"" •'""•'* ''""^««« «» »»« •"« obligation, d.

I0oV.ct.ch <IOe,«tH.tunocl.,Mediol«r.ti.ir« d« iMo -vJgt. ch. 80 «ld«».lt'
rUMunt .^60. et qii'oll., rvnit uii eff«l rttroiiHlf. • •» • 1 ""«

.ic lactfl 16 Vict Ob. 200, «v.,t d est »r.i un e(hKrdtro««.if, ,n.i. quo cotle

Wtrovif. et qu «*1I« no pouv.it ^.tre 6t«uduo nux cjm.g^ i„.p.„6e. p.f un te.ta-
m«ntou autre .cto. Q..^pour-ro„f6rer u„o hy^.tU^, oh fcveur Jo In dem.„.
d«re««, la teatatrico aurift d(^ affector .p^cialcment U" terro du T* Id ur ITac ' '

ompl,Mcmentdoco.ohargeHotlourfl,erun.vaUreu Urgent ain"l q « « ^
o*t roqma par la 28o cUu,j ^, I'hcIo 4 Vict. cb. 80. ^ ^ ' ' '

mlLue ll r . "^r .'' 'Vpoth*quo qu'^^av.it pour la .>mme 4ue ; •-
A .e. prppro. «p,e«.on8, et que cette dauao ne parlant que doa donationa entra
' nS'^^""' 'r ^•tend«|^apiftr^..app.iquer au. obligHt^, tpo. -
pai^^t«,.ameat<le madan.eWire 0, favour de la deraanderoHHo er,l *

coIle-ciBVaitrpa.d'bypotb6qul&lul*terrodud6^^^^ ' "^

Leblanc A O^^dy pour I« demanderewe. ^"*'°" '**'^°"*^*- '^ /

,' Cherrier, Dorian d Dorion pour le ddfendeVir. \

,(V. P. W. D.) * \ , '

♦-•

MONTRBAL* 8 MAI 1869. \ .

- . , EN CHAIIBRB. \

Coinam Smith, J. ^
^ No. 160. ■ ^^ ' ' '

^SoeiMdeConstrucHo^Canadimned«kmtriarv».Lam(mtaffnt .

Dana cette cauae un writ de aniaje-revendication avait M 6inanf poor aaisir
mend.qt.erentrele,nrtainadu D^fendenr certains objet. .pp.rten.nU la De-

l::

i 'I

■V

I8«

COUR SUPBailEURE, 1869.

Mmmii
Smmwrteau,

.(^;

^

mandere.8e;ene8effet,.«isi8parl'huW!er avaient 6t6 places on la possession
d un gardien. L action 6ta5t rapportablo le 30 Avril 1859. Le 8h6rif fit le
rappor| do sm proc6(W8 le 23 Avril 1850. Lo Deraandcrefee prdsenta une
rcqneto i M. le Jugo Smith en chambre pour obtenir poaession des effets saiViis
^ -Tndiqu68on donnant le cautionnement voulu en pareil cas. Ladifl8cuU6
eoulWdo par rhonorable Jugo fut de savdir, «'il avait jurisdiction en chambre ct
durant le terme, pour pouvoir adjuger sur le m6rite d'une telle application. *
* Ufienaye, pour la Demanderesse prdtendit, que tousles incidents ^ les r<^fer68
de cette nature qui requi^rent c^l6rit6 devaient 6tre d^eid6s sammaire-
raent sur le droit le plus apparent de I'unedes particv" 1 Pigeaij, proc. civile
pages 108 et 109 < actes "de notoi i6t6/ page 622, Edit de Janvier 1685 ; et
qu une jurftprudence constante avait 8anctionn6 ce mode d'applic«4iun ; no 1685
1 honorable J. R. Rolland vs. Bockus, Monlr6al, le 8 Avril 18*6, action rasr
portable le 18 Mai 1846. no. 1929. the Norths A merfcan Colonial Association ^"
Ireland vs. Crosby, Montrdal, le 29 Aoiit 1849, acti6niVapport«^ble le Ir Octo-
bre 1849; no. 2016 Crosby vs. Ross, Montreal le 6 AoAt 184^ iquftte d'nt
tiers, savoir r" The North American ColoiilSl Association of Ireiaril," it6cord6e
et cello du D^fendeur rejetee ; f^^yram Smitl,, >, 'action rappbrtable le ler
Octobre 1849. no. 328 Hudon vs. Chadwick en 1868.

En cons6quenco des citations ci-dessus, la roqu6te de la Demanderesse fut
accord6fe; mam-jev6ede lasaisie-revendication lui fut donn6e et elle fut mise
en possession.des offets saisis apr^s avoir donno le cautionnement ordinaire.

, P. i2. Zo/rc»Miyc, avocat de la Demanderesse.
-. Doutre, Daomt et Doutre, avocats du D6fendeur.

(P.R.L,) ' . >

^ MONTREAL. 80 AVEIL 1869.

. / ' =" Coraut Badolkt, J. ^

■--■■■ , ■ " 1 , ?

N0..861. --

, Masson et al. ss. Deamarteau et.al: \

LETTRB DE OARANTIK. .- ^ --^

Jug«-<l»eloc»uHonnem«.t.rt8uItant d'une lettre de B«nu.tie. p6ur «n montant UmlM. et pour «n
temp, a 6t«, d«ern.in<rp«. « «Jvocatioq ulWrieure. n-e.t p« «teint p.r le plementdCSSt

Les demandears en cette cause poursuivent lea d6fendours pour £100 6tant
^^mofltajjpd une lettre de credit souscrite par les d^fendeurs en faveurde Louis
FlamoijRRii At qui est e6mme suit : ' '.,-

■ -'-'■.'* ■ .

\, ■'■'■■ ,^ „ y . Montreal, 26 September 1865.

Jl^ra. Maison, Br^y6re, Thomas, & C6. ^ -; -

., Qeotlemen, > ^ . * t. -

. ,..PIease adv^^nce, sell and deliver to Mr": Louis Plamondon of this City, from
time to time ak,he may regnirelhem. goods to what amount yoa|>l.

t?.--i

auch terms to may be agreed upon. An| we hereby bind ourselves jointly and

."i-

COUR SUPERIETTRE, 1859.

187

wverally with him to the amount of one^ hundred pound., cy., and to pay the M««,„
J^onlns^eglectingtodo.. This IStter to . Ja.„ i„ •,, JU,^Z^ J^^

£100 0 0.

Your obedient servants,

(Signed,) Dbsmartbau, plamondon «fe Moubsbac.

ou d?l? . J^""""* '" '*"' ^^^'^'^^^o". que par cette lettre de credit

ou de garanfe ains, fa.te et sign^e et adress^e par 1^ dils d6fendeurs aux di s
den.ande«rs,1s^t devenus obliges et" tenu^ enve« eu:, a„ paLte MusqS

.concurrence de XlOO cour» actuel, pour tout.. marchandL et'effeTve dus et
hvr6s 8ur et en vertu de la dite lettre de credit et de garantie au dit iTuis PjI

. mondon et ce jusqu'& revocation d'icelK '

Xiue depuis le dit jour, 26 septerohre 1866 au 0 juin 1867 ils ont vendu et

%rr^ a«r et en vertu de la ^ite Jettr.de <^s«!,^^' vL^JZl Z

^^n^""" '' ^^" "" P^fit^ avantage,ll.,«eu, 7:^::!iZ
et article de commerce pour et au montant de £413 28. ed. cours actuel snr
esquels dus effets le dit Louis Plamondon en a remis au. ^iu deZLeu^^^^^^^

Z:::Tsst^!''''- ''■ "'T -^-^^ '«'^^'^"^ '' aurlditseffetuLTJ
tent de £384 lis. 2d. cours actuel, suivant le compte produit an sol^tien dea
pr ^nteset auquel les demandeurs referent; que le dit Louis Pirmodon^
Bouventreconnu devoir, au.- dits demandeurs, et que les dils d6fenreu„ ont

£3?rir2r"''"' T f^'^^^^^^-^^u^ le paiement de la dite somme de •
£384 lis. 2d. cours actuel, le dit Louis Plamondon a, k diff^rents temps con-

r : :t di.a:ti:r '''''-'- •- ''- ^■•"- p--- -
suit:: c!r ti^r '*'"'^"" ^'^^^^^ -'« --^- p^-p^o^- -

ce^Taientli^^'-^^'f '"^'"^'" '^j"'" »»«^. "o«fi* Je-dits demandeurs <iu'ils /
pEdon vT *r "'^''""'^ '''*'* responsables envers eux pour Lis
Plamondon y d^nommfi, et ce aux termes de la lettre de garantie r6^t6e en la /

ditC" '""'''"'" par les demandeurs et ont: alors r6voqu61a/

ilnl ^^ ""°""" "**"''""* ^ *^*"^' ^'' marchandisea an dit Louis Pla^
mondon & leurs nsques et perils apr^s le dit jour, 17 juin 1867.
^oe^ledit Louis Plamondon d6nomm6 en I» declaration produite en cette
caufle par les dits demandeurs, a pay6 4 ces derniers diverses sommes de deniers
depms le 17 jmn 1867. jour d^3. revocation de la dite lettre de garanti"^
montant k une somme exc6dant £100, savoir £169 6s. «* i

^^ -Que partant la dite somme ainsipAyee par le dit Louis Plamondon aux dits

^^^^^^^.^..^^.m^^^:^

^

\

it

i'a„

188

COUR SUPERIEURE, 1869.

v.

Muion Que lo paiemeiit de la dite somme do JE169 69. ainsi pay6e par le dit Looia

Dctnurteau. Piamoiidon aux doraandeurs depuis le Iff juin 1857, a eu Teffct de Iib6rer lea

dofendeurs de lour cautioilneinent oiivora los djts demAdcurs.
^ A cetle defense leh tleraandeiirs ont r^pondu S^dcialement commo suit :

> Que les Pommefl r6clam6e8 py eux, par la prisente action, 6tai6nt toutcs dues

p»r le dit Louis Plamondon d^*»vant le 17 juin 1857, joar dj la uigniflcation
de la revocation de la lettro do «3t6dit sur laqnelle cette action es^ fond6o, et
qu'ils ne pourauivent pas pour lo prix do man.handises vendues et llvr^es an dit
^ Louis Plamondon depuis la r*vwation do la lettro do credit. Qne bicn que to
' dit Louis Plamondon ait pny6 £150 fis. depuis la rdvocation de la dite k-ttre
<. .. > de crddit, les diis defondeurs sont h6Aninoin8 tonus aux teiracs et dans lo sens
de lii dite letlre do credit an paiement dii montant d'icelle en favour des dits
_ _^ demi^ideurs, qui sont croanciers du dit Loqis Plamondon, d'une somme beau-

coup plus consi.l6rablo pour marchandisps vendues dt livries avant la r6vocation
do U dite Icttre do credit, les dits def<Sn.leurs 6tant conjointement et solidaire-
ment obliges avec le dit ddbiteurjusqu'A concurrence do £100.

Que los dits defondeurs n'ont pas lo droi^ d6 demander que la dite somme de
.5169 59. pay6o par le dit Lopis Plamondon soit imputce h, ^teindre et payer le
montant de la dito leitro <Ie *i'ediT •. .

La contestation ainsi Iiee,4e8 parties dpnnerent des admissions des faits et
furent cntenducs au m6rite.

Fominv'ille pour les demandeurs protendit que par la f^ttre do garantie, les
dfefendeurs s'etaieat obliges solidairement avec lo dobileur et que cons^quem-
mentiis deineuraient toujours respousables des diverses sorames dues par le
debiteur et il cita : 2 Pardessus p. 436, chap. 2, No. 688. 2 vol. Droit Com-
mercial, par Gougot et Morcier vo. Caution p. 77.

Lafrenuye pour les defondeurs pretendit qu» cette lettre de cr6dit avait 6t6
donn6e en conformi.t6 aux dispositions du statufjle 1847, 10 A 11 Vic, cap. 11,
sec. 7. Que le paiement de £169 58. fait pal? 1^ d6bit.eur Plamondon depuis la
Evocation de la lettre de credit sans aucune ifoputatioo avait eu I'effet d'anean-
tir le cautionnement des dAfendeurs. Pothier ; obligations No. 567 coroll. 6.

Le jugement condamne les difendeurs au paiement de la somme demand^©,
mais il n'est pas' motiv6.

I*
■Cartier, Bertheht <& 'Pominville avocats des demandeurs.

Za/renaye <£ PajM'n avocats des d^fepdeure. ' %

(P. RL.) ^

■X

tr

180

MONTREAL, 38 NOVBMBRB. 1867.

'^ Coram MoNDButT, J.

\ " No. 1479. •

Le, Commissaire, d'icoks pour la municipaliti de la paroisse de St. Pi^tre de
\ Sorel.

^s Oi>mmissairesd*^coU,pourlamunicij>ali(4delavilleouBourffde William

Hem-y.

Les d6fendeur9 produisirent^n cette cause une exception k la forme do iW.-

Les Tf ^i;' ""■* **' '^'^ "" ""^ ^•"'"- ^•^'•^ «-P»'='» ««t «o,„™e suit:
Les defendeurs pour exception pAremptoire k la forme A cette action^ disent, que

les d,U d6fendeurs „e peuvent ^tre tenusd'y r^pondrepfurlesraisonsiuivantr
Parbe que les d.ts d^fendour, n'ont re9u aucune assignation en cette cause, et

?rrr ^r ." ^^ expbitd'assignation n'a 6te lai.s6e k leur bureau "d'aiai-
res «n la vilie ou boui^ de Sorel.

aIT T ''7S"**r * ^^ <■*'*« * J«l"> George Cr^bassa i son domicile
an dos deWplo. dWgnation et „o„ pas au bureau d'a£ires des dits d6fen-

t::3i z:^"^' ^-- ^- •>^---^- -•« r- ^t. f.te con.

A la dite exception l^dite^eraandeurs r6pondirentcomme suit:

ma?fo„r«' f^^"^' '""''""' '" '^^'*' ^^^^P''*'" ^ '* ^«™^ ««"t faux et
malfond^s que l'««s,gnat,on en cette causa a 6t6 faite suf John George Cr6-
bassa, secr6ta,re-tr68or.er des dits defendeurs 1 son domicile et personhellement,
ce qu, est uno assignaftn^uffisanto aux yeux de la loi, et que d'ailleurs les dite

lfji"r T!r"".'r''" '" "•««« dWaires, si ce n'est audomiciledu
dit John George Cr^bassa k William Henry

Le jugement de la cour est motiv6 comme suit •

forme ^^^d^-deu" The School Commissioners for the mnnicipa% of the

ITJ r'^ VV.lI»m Henry." k cette action, avoir examinela proc6dur^

in^ """'"' '""i'"'^"^' --<i^'-tque les difendeu™ en cette
^je les dits commissaires d'^coles pour la municipalite d« 1. ville ou bourgde

Wdham Henry n'ont pas et6l6gafementassign68.' la signification dn bJdl
son»mat.onfoUe A domicile Uohn G^rge Cr^a Jnt ^\Z^^

y^\

'I i

!s*:^""!^;-r^''"*'^'^ ■' m ^^z^::zz

AAt^ J • ,. — ¥^9'" "" ""u aanaires des dits

.defendeurs commesusdit;,maintient la dite'el^ion k la forme et d6cl.re

190

COUB SUPERIEURE, 1 869.

^oSi^£"!f •'■*""«"»'"^" *^'^'^ """^ «t <*e ""• effet,otfonvoie lesdito dtfendeurs abwus de

School^mU ^* *•*""'"''* ***'"^^'"""'^*""' "^^^ <^^P«n»- k.

Wm. Henry. Chetrier, Dorion «fc Dorion avocats dea domandenra. ^

V . Cartier, Berthelot «fc Pominville avocats des d^rendeun.

(p. R. L.) *

Editor'8 note. Bed ; Vide. La Corporation duJOomt* de Tprrebonne appelante et
ValiQ intim^, d^cid^ en appel en Juin 1869.

«f

sT'

MONTREAL, 28 FEVRIBR 1869.
Coram Badolky, J.

No. 986. ' \

Miirtineau vs. Kamgan. \

Jug^.'-Qu'll n'est pM D<k)es»»!ro do (Mre uue Section do domicile d«n« une liwoription en ft«^

La d6cIaration du domandeur all^gue : '

Qu'en 1854 un nomme Blake fit son testament l6guant la terre prtsentement
en litige k B. qui la vendit au demaiideur aprfis le d^cda de Blake, qui mourut
dans la m^me ann6e et sans avoir rien Qhang^ i son teslament , \
' A la mort de Blake, le dcfendeur 6tait en possession coinme locataire de Fa
dite terre et ne voulut pas s'en d^saisir, de 14, la pr68ente action. L»action fut
rapport6e le 23 nOvembre 1 867. Le 26 noyetnbre 1 857, le dcfendeur produisit
une exception dilatoire, portant qu'en juillet 1867 il a achete da Michael Blake
j' frere du testateur, qui se pr6tend seul heritler du dit James Blake, la ausdite
terre et en cons6qu«ice demanda d6Iai pour appeler le dit M. Blake comme son
garaht forniel. Michael Blake n'a pas comparu. Le 20 mars 1868, le d6fen-
deur fit motion ppur s'inscrire en faux contre le testament du dit James Blake,
et la copie d'icelui filee comme exhibit du demandeur, la minute ayant 6t6
apport6e au grefie et ies moyens de faux produita ; le 19 f6vrier 1869 le deman-
deur principal, maintenant d6fendeur en faux ; fit motion pour faire rejeter Ies dits
rapyens comme 6tant non-pertin^ns et inadmissibies. Cette motion contenait bait
moyens difierents : lo. Les dites iuscriptions et moyens ne sont pas appuy^s sur
nne a^t^risation spSciale, celle prodbite avec I'inscription 6tant de M«rtin Earri-
gan seulement, ce qui n'est pas la m&me personne que le dcfendeur (1). 2o.
L'inscription clle-m^me est faite au nom de Martin Earrigan tandis que I'actlon
principale porte Martin Karrignn aliat Earrigan, fils. 8o. Jl n'y a auenne
Election de domicile (2). 4o. Les, dits moyens sont trop vagues et trop sim-
plement n^gatifs (3). 6o. Les dits moyens attaquent non-seulement la fausset6
de I'acte mais encore sa validit6. 6o. Les moyens attaquent I'acte non-seule-
ment de faussetd mais de falsification et'il n'y a aucune raison pour en soutenir
la falsification. 7o. L'acte argu6 de faux a 6t6 admis et reconna pour vrai par
le ddfendeur. 8o. L'acte argu6 de faux est vrai et sincere et la dite inscription
n'est faite que pour obtenir du delai (4). La motion concluait k ce que le dit
demandeur en faux fut d^chu de son droit d'insoription de faux et que la dite
inscription (at d6clar6e irrSgnliere, nuUe et non avenue, 6t les dits moyens
impertinens et inadmissibies et qu'il fut passd outre k rinstructioa de Inaction
principals. . , _

V

J,;.,.,., /-v^p.;

COUR 8UPERIEURE, 1889.

191

U demandeur en faax r^pondit k fiette motion par une^tre, d«rtnandant que
8e» moyens de faux fuAent d6cM. pertinens.,t adml.JSe« et que le d6fendeur
en faux fufetenu d y r6pondre dan. tel dCai qu'il nhSrait k la oour d'accorder.
Cette derniAre motion fut accorJif ot la prcmi^n^jet^e, le jdgement snr cetto
dernidre ne se motivant que sur une raison d'.yiffisance Bans autre detail, void
lejugementdelacour. -^

Considering the motion fyled in this cause by the plaintiff, defendant en faux
4ind the reasons therein set forth insufficient for the rejection of the inscription
en faux of the defendant plaintiff en faux fyled in this caqiKfTdoth reject the
said inotion with co8t^ and adjudging upon the motion fyled by the defendant
plaintiff en fiiux, doth maintain the same, and doth declare the inoyens de faux
by him fyled relevant and admissible, and doth order the plaintiff, defendant en
faux, to fyle his plea thereto within eight days after the making of the procd..
rerbal descnpUve of the exhibit fyled and argu6 de faux in this cause.
x<«. /2icani{ avocat du demandeur.
McKay ilrAuttiH avocats du d6fendeur.
(p. B. t.)

Le difendeor en faux cita : ^ ' /

(1) Pigean t, 1, p. 409. /

Pothler t. X, No, 769. / ./

Code de procedure art. 218. /

Oarr« et Ohanveau t 2, p. 398. /
->^ Denisart t. 8 p. 486.

qnl tou. ainsi que le. .utres qui ont trait« sur le faux, veulent une autorisaUon ep^ciale
du demandeur en faux pour B'inscrire en fcux. . f ""

(3) Pothier t. X, No. 769.

Pigeau 1. 1, p. 418 i. la note. i

-y OarrtfetOhauTeaufca, pp. 416et4l6. ,

<S) Pigeau 1. 1, p. 433.

Noaveaa Denisart t. 8, p. 479.

(4) Otati et Ohanveau t. 3, p. 400.

/

i\

DB CIRCUIT.

VONTKBALi, 17 SBOBMBBB IteS.

'Wbram Surta, J.

'No. Ml.

Z^lane vs. RoutielU.

LXTTBB ba OARAHTIS.

U demandear en cetlte cause rdclamait de la d6feadeh«e en qmilitd de 1««|.
■ommede £50 en vertu de. .IWgate de «i declaration en sabatance oomm.
Qaele premier aoftt 1857. en la ditfl p»mt.,e d> Sta. ItoUue, dirt,^

MartincMi

VI.

Kerrlsan.

(1) 10 It 11 Vict., cap. 11, sec. 1.

-

1 i

193

COUR DE CIRCtJiT, 1888.

LeblMio

vs.
RouMcllr.

Benuharnois, Thiophile Duinj>uohol, cHlovanl marqband tie la dit& paroisfle de
Kte. Martino et actuollementcpmuiisde la dito chh de Montreal, flt et connentit
son billet prominsoire en faveur du demandeur, par lequol billot, k troiH inoia de
8fl date, le dit Th6ophile Dumoucbel Ik et alors marohand, promil payer pour
valeur re^ue au dit demandeur ou k son ordre nu buruan de la banq^i^u peiiple
k Montreal, savoir ; au bureau de la banque du peuple, faisant affaires en la cit6
de Montreal, dit district de Montreal, la sommc do jESO et lequel billot le dit
Thiophile Duraouchel signa If et alors comtne suit : " Tli6opliile Dumoiicliol,"
et \k et alors le remit au ditj demandeur qui en est demour6 depuis por^ur
et creancier do bonne foi. I

Que le mOntant du dit bill^ est maintenant dft et 6chu depuis longtemps
savoir, depuis le 4 octobre 1867 et que lors de sou 6oli68nce ot souvent depuis,
le dit billet a 6tk pi^senti au buraau de la dite banque du peuple pour en obte-
nir le paienient qui en a toujours 616 refuse fauto de fond* doiliii6s k en effec-
tuer lo paicment.

Que le dit Th6ophile Dumbucbel est en faillito et en d6oonfiture et est inca-
pable de rencontreir ses engagements et est notoirempnt insolvable, et ce au vu
et su de la dite d^fondi-resse.

Que le 20 mui/l80Q le dit! feu Marc Antoine Primoau \k et alors viyant fit et
consentit un 6crit tous seing priv6 portant date k Ste. Martine susdit le 20 mai
1856, par lequel/6crit ailress6 au dit demandeur ; le dit feu Marc Antoine Priraeau
d6clara " qu'il ^ rendait caution pour le dit Th6ophile Dumoucbel jusqu'au
" montant do £60 de marchandises si toutefois le dit demandeur voulaiL bien
'♦ accepter le dit Marc Antoine Primean et ceauivant les termes de paiement que
" le dit demiiodeur 6tablirait avec le dit Philippe Dumoucbel ;" et tel qu'il
appert au dit 6crit produitTet qui est comme suit : «' Q. Leblanc, 6cr., Ste. Mar-
tine, 26 mav 1866. Monsieur ;Tleporteur, M. T. Dumoucbel d68irant ouvnr un
magasin dafas mon village k Ste. Mptine, je vous infarmo que je me rends cau-
ti<^ pour Uii jusqu'au montant de £50, cinquante liwos coure actuel, do mar-
chandisesJ si toutefois vous vonlez bien m'accepter, et oe siiivant les termes de
paiement/ que vous 6tablirez avec lui.* Ce faisant, vous obligerez voire ti 6s
humble ^erviteur. M. A. Primean." * v,

Qu'ep consequence du dit 6orit, et •m oonsi^dration de la solvabilitfi bien
connuedu dit feu Marc Antoine Priraeau et de sa recomn^endation contenue au
dit 6c|^t, le dit demandeur fit dos avances de marcbandi^s au dit Th6ophile
Dumpuchel suivant les termes de paiement 6tablis cntre ^eux et par lesquels il
ut bien entenda et stipuld entre ce dernier et ledit demandeur que le oaution-
pen^ent ainsi offert par le dit Maro Antoine Primeau jutqa'ji concurrence de
citu^uante livres courant resterait et serait toujours valide pour lea demiers £60
que le dit Th6ophile Dumouoh^ ponrnrit devoir att dH ^emandenr et que oe
dernier aurait toajonn reoonm contre la dite caution pour le suadit montant de
^60 tant que le jiit Dumoachel lui serait rederable d'au-moim £60.
I Qne le dit billet fiit donn6 poor dea^marchandiies ainai venduea et livrdes par
le demandeur an dit Dumonchel.
Que la dite ddfenderease uchant bien qu'elle est cantitoet redevable jiiaqn*jk

"itdemaadear poor le dH la^tyhite^ DonHwthel

VV"'

COUR DE CIRCWT, I8fi8.

. retirt de de dernter av.nt « f.illito et .ur U mH,«. de ses Wen, qui devai^re
r.blea pour no garant.r et s'.ndomniser du M,«lit cilionnemcnt.
moniant oxo^dant la dito somme de ^Cso.
' au^termJi* ^'"•° ^"^«'"« ^"•«««» «" «o"n,ott.nt .on dit cautionnemont
Ti.6opb.leDu.uoud.el na.ait bien que le dit dcnandour reti«„drait Ic b^nlflco

Le» difonsea de la d6fendere«e «o,.t en sulfstance commc «uU :
Que le demandeur n'a jam d* f»it connaUr^ au dit feu Primeau s'il acccntait
ou non ^ette offre ainsi faite do se porter ca.,La de Du^ouZl e't q ' n o' L
fait que 1, demandeur n'a point fait connalt^e aa dit feu Primoai .a dVterm ba
t.on de I'accopter comme caution du dit D^mouchel, a iib/r^Tdi pleaT I
tou e, offrea de garantie et a rendu n„Ho, et co^me non-avc uo .enffre

roZTZ^LZT' '"" '" ""'''' '' oons6que.™e„t cet::^:^^^
ro|)08e 8ur celte pr6tend..e garantie np peut se maintenir. ^* ^

Quri est bien vraiquVlie est logataire univer«..lle%„ U8.,fruit de feu Marc

il /K nff , ""'.leoO.adreiw^ etlivr6audemande»r une leltre par laquelle
il lu. fit offre de cautionner le nomm6 Dumouchel ju8qu»au mon.ant de £60

entre lui (le do.nandeur) et le dit Dumouchel. ^

Et la d6fendere88e alligne, que depuis le 26 mai 1866 jusqu'au 19 juin 1857

futlfl! ^'^•^"^""~»5<J"«'*l"-«'"i«^re veuteda telle, marchaudises qui
fut fa,te au nomm4 Dumouchel par le de.nandeur le fut le 26 raai 1850 aprds
q«eledemandeur-eut6t6n.i. en possession <,e la dite lettre. et sit JI^I
..1 . "d «t que lc8 autres venla, out M faites A difffirentes dates subsfi-
quentas pouV des montants moim 6l^v6s, et tel qu'il appert par I'^tat.decoml
qu. a m tout r^cemment foumi kl. defenderesse parT deLndea et oTeS
t>roduit au soutien des prisentes. ' «* qui esi

nn^Zlr.^'"^ "^rchandises vendues a« dit Dumouchel I'ont toutea ^t^ J
«n d61a et A un crtdit de trois moia, A dater de chaque vente.

a ^l T. ' '^ T ''*' '" '' ""^* '«^^ inclu«ve.nent,le dit Dumouchel
a pay6 au d.fc demandeur on diff6rents termea en d^duotion du prix des su^lit^

6tat marqu6 P auquel il a 6te d^jk fitit alluaion.
Bt la d6fe„do««o.alIAgae quo lo feu >«arc Antoine Primeau en a'cfiaat

.^reir ;.*^r '^""""""*' ?«""«***<»« °"^^«-di»«Jn«l«'«umontant
.pfc,W dan. «. du« lettre et «d,a«t 1« frmoa. t\ la maniZ expria.*. en

-l^iri,Ih::^il'".*'"'^ a. garanUr q„e lo paiement do, ^i*-^
pareil ctja.

Lcblabc

Vt.

RouMellc.

i

J-»

>^<l»ciaqc

^1

i

If,

* ',

,.^"

^f •'.,-•

%

104

COUU DE CIRCUIT, 1868.

LcblMo

V.

Uuuwalle,

Que lo dit Mnrc AntoiM Prirneau eat niort le 0 octobre 1806, et ce 4 U oon-
naisaance du ilit demandeur qui aurait appria oo d^c^n It) jour oii il e»t vHv6.
" SQoo poiidaiit le lapa de tempa qui aW 6cuul6 dopuia le moment oik lo deman*
dttiir A ri'fU la dito lettro de garaiitie jusqu'au jour du d6cda de Maro Antolne
PrimeHU inokiaivoment, le dumandour a avHno6 au ditDumouohel dea mnrulnin*
disea et effota do commerce au montdnt do iCl 10 IOh. lOd. et que pendant la
m6mo p6riode de tcmpn, il a ro^u du dit Dumoucliel »ur le prix do tolica mar-
chandiavaXTl 10a> co qui 6tait plua quo auQImnt pour couvrir le montantde
la susdito garantie du dit Primeau.

Que la convention faite entro lo dumamlour ct le'VTit I^umouchel comporlant
que lu cHutionnement du dit Primeau juaqu'^ concuitenco de £00 que lo dit
^ l)umouchel pourrait lui devoir, a 6t6 et oH une convention qui n'« pu en loi lier
et obliger le dit Primeau au paiomont d'uno tolle somme d'argont ot que cette
stipulation a 6t6 faite cntre lo demandonr ot Dumouchol pour frauder le dit Pri-
meau et en contravention & la lettre ct an sens de la dito lettro de garantie, et
que le dit Primeau n'a pu en loi 6tre 116 ou oblig6 on aucune fa(;on par uno telle
atipulation, que auivant la teneur de la dito lettro do garantie le dit Primeau
s'est obl)g6 de garantir jusqu'au montant de £00 do ventes que le demandcur
feruit au dit Dumouchel auivant lAd^ilais g'(§n6ralemeiit aucord^a en mati6re8
^ commercialos, aavoir, sur un d6lai d6termin6 lora dea ventea et ordinairement
limite k troia et aix moia.

Queparladite leltre de garantie le dit Primeau n'a point cautionn6 au
demandeur le paiemcnt d'une somme de £00 payable 6.u.ivant!|«ts stipulatioos
que rapporte le demandeur, que par la loi la dette cauUonn6e; piir lo dit Pri-
meau 6tait la dette la plus on^reuso que le dit Dun)ouch«leftt1^t£r6t d'^teindre
et que los premiers deniers pay^a par le dit D-jmo«6h{ol 4<iiycnt 6tre imput^a
sur cotte crdance ainsi cautionnSo et que cette ci-^ance cat oello form6e par If s
marchandises vendues au dit Dumouchel par le demandeur, et que la ddfetod^
resso qui repr^sente aujourd'bui le dit Primeau est fond6e en loi k demander
telle imputation.

^Que par la dite lettre de cautionnement, la^ croance reclam6e par le detnan-
denr n^a jan^ais 6t6 cautionn^dl ou garantie.

La contesiation ayant6t6 liee; le demandeur oxamina le ditDamoucbol commt-
t^moin qui prouva entr'autres fait9 Ics suivanta :

Ayant vu la lettre de garantie pr^duite en cette cause parle demandeur comme
son exhibit numero "deux," le tdm^n declare que la dito lettre lui a 6t6donn6fl
par feu Maro Antoino Primeau et qu^l s'est rendu avoc cette lettre de garantie
chez le demandeur le 26 mat 1806. tt^moin a remis cAte lettre entre lea'mains
du (^emandeur qui I'aaccept^e comme 6&m6 coll^tdrale telle qu'eoitendue entre
nous, la dite lettre devait rester entre lea maiiA du demandeur comme 6tant
aipplicable aur aucune balance qui resterait due. II a 6t6 enteiidu entre le timoin
et le demandeur que cette lettre de credit couvrirait toute balanop au montant
de'X0O qui resterait due aur le compte qu'ii commenfait k onvrir cbes le deman-
deur. ^. .,. "" ■^";' V ^' " V- " - "■"

Parle re^u da 8 septembre 1867 la difenderesae a entre aes'teains la somme
de £166 la. 6d. pour ae garantir des lettres de garantie qui soot enoore entre

/I

V

M'

COUR D8 GlROmr, 1968.

• " '•*

ro< re toute. cc leUre. do g.ra„tie, . .ocept* 4 ccnpte ooUe ^inl-U.
La balance du compte cournnt d6 hu demandeur .„r le prii «t U valeur do.

Le tAmoin a ou occwio,, do diro k la dAfondereaw ^ le mol. do wWembro
8 7 quM re«Uit de« balancoa do compro courant dues par lo 46ml Sffi

a d6fendere«^ a pri, do. .omn.™, d'argont. ot do. cr6di.a et do. billeU ZX
do,n„,.er do. d6bour,6. qu'olle dovait fairo .ur le compte du t«mol„

lo/renr,!,epox,tW<\o,»mdmT ei,« lo Statut Provincial 10 A 11 Vic cap 11
.ec. 7. pour *tabl^ que IWoptation d'une telle le.tre do garantl n'Ct' 1
itrZ' "/[*'""' ^"^ •« -nvcnlion ontre lo demando^urTDum oM
6ta^ conformo 4 la tenour do ,a lottre do credit et ...i| e« l'.ffet do irPH-

Uassldy pour la -dcfendorei^o «)utintque I'imputation de. diff6rent«, .nmm^

; e demer. quo Dumouchol avait pa,*e« andomandeu, devnit^^X
^ la lo, so fa.ro do plein droit .ur la dette oautionn^o. en «orte que le lu ronne
1 n.^t do Pr.m.a« avait .t. an^anti p„r,o. premier, paiemont.]!;^?,::::;

,. I;«J"»«'"^ntd6bou(olodemandeurde.onactioa«vecd6pon^
..r Za/rrtiaye <t Porptrt nvocHt. du demandeur, ^^ F--

Zeifanc cfc Ca.v*irfy avocats du ddfendeur. . '' . "*

(P. E. L.) r

... , /

, ' COUR 8UPBRIEURE. .

MONTREAL, aV AVRIL 18S9.

Coram Bjertrblot, J. '

Ko. 163.

^I'^^lchums^ Walker A WalktroppoMut.

OPPOSITIOIT Pl^KIufic.
Jng6,-Qu'une ODpctHon Mt aujetip 4 ta piremptton dlustoaoo

L'opposition qui fut d6clarde p6rim6e par lo jugement rendu en ceUe cau«,
n^avau pa« 6t6 cont^t6e Le 13 Avnl 1859. le Demandour donna a VZ
_MiUqu_dferat( motion le 17 Avril 1869 pour pfiremntion H'in.f ^ '^
opposition afln d'annullon P«'«">Pt>on d mstance de .on

Cette opposition avait 6t6 produite le 13 Juillet iflAO «» » ^.
sunt da di«n« d'OtUy, lo 8 A„« 1860,d.,.^ ,. SslTr'^r ''

deurestencesterme.: *^ ^ motion du Doman-

•' Motion on behalf of the 8ai<l olaintiir in « »..,»i.

LabiMM

V.

ItiMtMallaw

;U

RiMllMni

/

SUriUWOR CX)URT, 1800.

I/H c«rtiflo«t (hi Rwfflor «tt d«(6 du f AvHI 1860.
Ujuffflim.ni mmlu |.«r U Cour i>«t conforoio aux lerm«« de ta motion.
A, «* (7. R4)berlion, avotatt dii Demandoiir.
Bttkutwd; Dunkin, avocats de rOppoaant.
(p. a. t.) _

MONTREAL, 31it MARCH, 18S0.

CWam Smith, J.
' '■ * Ko. 7ia.
Booth v.rTht Montrtal ani Bylown Railroad Compantj.
l^.fc^-Thmt mmrrttm of proew on the "M VnMmtr on th« " l.t« M^ftary." Md on »ho •• iMt

^ Thii was an exception d la forme to the writ of numinon. in thia oauM and
the return of the Bailiff thereon written. The Bailiff ceriifloJ, iu effect, that he
had made diligent waroh an.| enquiry fpr the office of the Company Dofeud-
nnt, but had been unable to find it; andvthat ho liAd lH3un credibly Informed
that'tho CorapHny haJ no office or place of bu»int^s in consequence whereof
that ho had served (he writ and declaration on the " last President," the "late
Secretory," and the " last Secretory " of the ComiMiny.

/»«• C«rtam.~(After stating facts.) The question to be detei'mined horais
IS a service on the last President, the late Secretary, and (he last Secretory of a
corporate body like the Defendant a good service f I thiiik not. Tho charter
of the Company Defendant, makes no provision as respects service. Grant and
Ang.ll & Ames say that until allowed by the stotute m service of summons
could be made on a corporation. In the absence of any provision in this re-
spect in the stotute containing tho Company's charter, we have no common
law^n the subjoot, and the exception must therefore be maintoined.

Coram

Hackay eft Auttiny for Plaintiff.
Edward Carter^ for Defendant

(SB.) € '

Except|6n naaintained^

H«ld,-Thi
imtinty
ortbaj

Thisw

Montreal

Jurist, p.

TheC(

Mr. Juflti

Aylwi

enaoted tl

ever part (

local rates

The pn

provinoe fi

ttom local

■hoald be

The Sto

that above

«zemption:

duab," wh

assessment i

shall be eon

-•

t

r ■

0

->v

•

*

i

J

mise ot a fe
of any Gove
As a rem(
liberal and
18 liable to

■i ■■ ■.

' i ■

.' V-
if

■

/

■ t

f ,

t

t *

•\

premises des

holding then

They do n

•ontend that

"^■J-

. « .

»

"n

*

1 . "■* !■•

■ * •

^:''...^

"

\

-. •

^^^^^

COURT OP qubb;^.8 pBj^ctf. 1868. i„

IK APPBAL

'■on rn «oro„o, cocw. Ditrwor o> Mcrmwi.

MOlTTMAi; \H DIOIMJUft mn

^»™. 8,. t. „. UF„«,„.., B^,c.,., A.„.M..D.;v«, J.. C„0M.

THH MAYOR. A.D.BME^. AKD O.T.Z.NH op TH. O.TT Or MONTEMI.

Juriat. p. 260 and «k, ^ ' ^ "^^"^ '" *''° ^d volume of the

•m part rfUuii.p^^n^ tJo Ine .yJCZZ^I. nM ^'"'"' *" '''"'^
local ratofl^nd taxe.." *"***' ''*'* ^ ««J«!ff>t ftom all

The preamble of this law state, that « by the 1... „f »k * ^ r
provnoe formerly the Province of Upper ^l^^\l '^ '^*^°" *»' *^«
from local taxes and assessnienta," anHhat ^t t -noh property i« exempt
•hould be so exempt in that porUon rf ti« P«. • J*^*"* "^"^ *^« •*»•

The Statute of Upper Oan^to l^h n "" ^'"""'^ I-ower 0„^"
that above cited is ^69^^ ;^^J^""'° '" """ie in the preamble rf ^

exemption f«>m^r« the C^iTand 0^ "^""^"^ '"'* ^^^^ ^~°» 0°' «>«
duab/. whichlf^expXrt^S .'i:^^--^^^

"sessmont a. other Unds." And SeotionT iTi^^u ^ "*"' '**«' «»«»
-haU be considewHl as rateable nwt«!!!!..*'K u^! *^*" *^* " ^U luid.

^i«3 of a f. simple byW^liZr^^t r^^^^^

of any Governor of Canada, oa by liam^ '^ *"^ "*' Pertifioate

As a remedial Statute our Act of the 10th and 1 ni. :. *
liberal and benign construction " Tfc! p ^ " *" "^»'« » " laiwj

i- liable to assTment^ ^er «d^^"^*" f^ *^' *^ ^PvS.
Pi^mises described in the aLZntS^^TT f ''/ *'^"' «*°^-d
holding them by Ie«»." "'*^'°' ^^ «>' «>« St Anne's Ward, not „

They do not assert that he has the fee simnl« i.- -i^i .

•r'

itlRf or QlIKRNft BKNCir, 1868.

L''..t

J

'1^;

with

Geo. 3, Ci

and Grown

I Bce no W{
Itin of opinioi
appellant and a(a6t

=?=

T

%

'^

qI DW^iilfgrtMi ilH °>*il>i "Oorw, M4 fmniwa which aubJ«oU hfen to taialloa.
nalli^. *». "^^ *»< qoflaUon tlicw which arlM* in ihiniMM IP I viaw it, bi whelhar (^mwn
IHiWfKrty held bj /fcu7 rmpk^tmHque \t an'exfil^fliii lo the oximiption KrantMl
\f tL> {Qth and 11th of lh» Qaoen. If tho Aot won r«!fltrict4id miluly U\ Lowty
dauMM^, » 4u»|ifiixl ri^ht of proptrty, pooullair to our luoal law, might bo nuppoaod
to lit** (*pt«P»d into the oontifuiplation of tli# K^tKiiilatura in fVatning it, but it
eitcflKii U; dhe «holo ProHnc*, to IFpper C'rfB^a uImi wlioro tho Dootfino of .
emph;ileun» v» uinknown and diM>ii not obtain. Tho Upper Canada Act eioepta
lanilH holdtin by luam), and d(NtM thin in exprtma tornm ; no huoIi uxot'ption ia to
bo found in thu Aot in qiMation. In it then to be infbrrod or tacitly
uiMlorHUMMl t I am doeidudly of opinion that it cannot. Tho conatruo-
lion put upon tho Htututo by tho K«H|H)ndnntH in in my opinion fonxnl, harah and
unnatural, tho uxumption froi|i taxation iM given til "all pnipurty liold by or in
truMt for tho Crown," whether loaaed or unloaatxl held by lniU. miphiftiutiqae or
hnil d U)}ffr, Tho exemption attachoa to the drown property however hold,
,( and to (i// Crown property without diminution. Tho exemption ia favorablo to

tho (?n>wn, in tho intoruat of tho people, and ih not to \t& taken away by impli- ,
• cation particularly, any roferenvo to auch abHtraoticma aa tho ((ualified
tltyminium under tho doctrine of tmphytemit necma to me plainly i^ variance
' % with tho terma aa well aa the apirit of tho aot.

\ To rooognixo a distinction ao aubtilo ia in f«ot to legialate, and in merely in- '

torpreting tho will of tho Lcgialaturo^ tho aound rufo ia, ubi Uxnon diitinguit nee
no$ dUtinguere dehcmut. „

Admitting a qualified or apooial property imjil0' Appellant, tho property haa
never ooaaod to bo Crown property, or proporlyhold by tho Crown, and therefore
exempt from local oaaoHamont. The exen^ption ftom taxation givea additional
value to the property of tho Crown, auoh property ia more valuable to a tenant
by tho amount of taxea from Which ho ia exempt, and tho tenant will pay for
hia loaao a larger sum in oonsoquenco, the Crown will be a loaor pro tanto if the
tenant ia to be taxed, and notwithatandipg the oomprehenaiTe and general terma
of tho sjtatute, " afl proptrty " the Crown property will yet be liable to taxation
if held «|lider, loaae-though not ao if under dircot.govemment management.
' In Low^r Canada there will be tacitly infeited an exception which under the
law of Upper Canada required in direct terma to ho expressed.

If the logialation of Canlada intended to reatadot the exemption iti
1|hy was npt the exception pontained in the u|Pper Canada statute
the new aot, or at least in some manner referred to so aa to qualify
sality of the terms " all property," But as the statute of iO^e 10th and 11th ia
mado expt^y- to 'apply to the whole province being the last in order of time
jljpper Canada, it impliedly repeals the exception in the 59
ts^ipmunity from taxation to Crown and Clergy landa
ieate iffi that part of the province.
Is statu^jjbr the claim of the Respondents, and I
i|cannot rctl^P^^' money they have received from the
ado to refund and pay it back.

'm\

v**

r

tnta

Upo

aatu

•k

Cam
II

«Ci

«*kn
"a«
" tun

l-^'

(

aaic

«.in,

•' ord

"auffl

" amt

"ing

"auhj

•* expi

•< ther

** unto

«'and(

"aaht

"tbea

*• BUCCI

** becoi
"year
♦• Goul
"thed

"iride

" vesael

. " conati

^^^^* the t«

** jeotioi

-Th«

" or rec

"firom t

"Tha

" runap

" »nd wi

♦•o?thei

"Th»

»r

-~ ■'

»

►■
v

f

-,.

-

• -

■s-

n-' **.

' I.-

■"^Wfer

I. . . ^ . . \

f ..

19*

l<<^Xl^,«r 8t. i:;wr,oo« bat

jg|/* IJO m back from Uie mM d<

^JUpr M<<J 'JMinmiaBion«ra intend to <

" "ini Mid to pMw from Ui« Mid
«« «,-ji ^1 ill •

J ..tu«of U.. ApHW.boIdi„gort«„.noy,tbeI.Z:;«,«..«J^^
* .1. I i. from th. Oom«l«i«ioo.r of l^iblie Work, ia ^Ju^ ^ i, . !?"
Cw.l to the AppelUnt, 4o.. m follows j^ '-f ^ v^.V ' ^^'

lftiy.JMm St. riwrsoo. b.t Mc«iH . " «lw.7 f 40 fcl t . dlt^o. 3,;

' oo-tnwl, •»<( .bo • 9«Mftt^«f '.h* yii»> liii "^ '

•• ordio.?, mif. .ton- b/mZi !ri':s:!;!ri'-d:^^

.mount of power to be .pplied «d „.«| b, ^^{^^ *^ t!^

•ubject, howorer, to the condltione h«i«biiA« mmi.\om^ L-i-C^K « . .
- expre- condiUon. upon wbicb ^|u. of loT^.t^'t^r'^pp,; ^JI:::^
2 thereto .. granted, to hare .nd to^Id tb« Mid lit i«d w. J « ^^ 1

^«nU> the Nidlr. Gould. W. hair. *c,fr«« the «^<;^;m;T^ '

« ^d dunng the torm of a^ year, frtnn thence nit eoeuing ',««w.Ju Zlt;

the M,d torn, unto her M.jesty'. Ueoeiver G.nor.1 of the Mid ProWnce S
1 r^" »n office, the .um of £108, for the „id lot .nd wte^Vh^h 1 Jj
^ become due .nd pay.ble hdf.ye.rly on the m October .nd l.t April n ct^
ye.r of the Mid term, .ubject m .fore«ud. th.t i. to My • « Th.ffho ^IZ
Gould .h.11 not erect .ny building wh.te.er, within te^'f.t ll b T^t o"
the dock W.1I, nor .n .ny w.y wh.tever, obetruct . free pasMge oJ 10 feet
^^.de In frotftof th. .Aid lot for .11 pe«,nB to p.M .„d repL3 t towfn *
vcMel.. but .n m.ki„g hi. building, on the Mid lot he will 1^ dlow^ .1 to

- jtti^n" * '"* ''^ an^ the la^er p^ of the be«n. supporUng the7o-
" Th»t veaMl. m.y be Uken along.ide m front of the .«d lot for di.ch.nrinir

" 2ir f ^^^i^' •"'^•"^ *^ "^ "-"^ regnI.tioi« « m.y L elbZ S
"from time to time for regaUting the traffic i,f, the C.n«l ^'W^wlied

" ml of « * "•**' •'r'*^ '«««^* » ^«»T«<1 fo' the effectud working of four

« ^^wnit"" '1 J^'t "'"T'y "*"*''"«'7 '^°»«^*«i th«'«with. but no more

^'ST'." u ?7 '"i" PO'P^-d'oulT depth by four feet in xT^r
Th»t should rt hereafter be found th.t the .,id sluice. ^Il,.dmit . greater ^

"'If
c I]

tf'

/200

ft'

•A.

K

^•r-

I.

CJOURT OP QUEEN'4| B|NCH, iks.

GoaddB'

<■•■

"jjl^lffyr

/'

" ^lume of water than will Ife sufficient to prbjpel fowr runs of mill stonea and
•D^lbS^tu. " HMichinory by niflans of tbo moat^ppr&Vcd wheels, the Baid Ira Gould shall •
" ifot be entitl^^ by bis lease to rebeive th« ^oW thereof, but the said Commit
" sioliers shall and may r^ul«6 an'd lessen tB^ volume of supply to him by'
" lowering the si uiije- gates!'"' ' ' - ^ '

" That the said sluices shall bo placed near the north eastern boundary line
•* of the said lot, and the top thereof will be 6 feet ^elow the or(Jinary surface
'■ of the water in the basin." ■ , ..' '.

" That the said Com'Bnissionera shall construct at their own expense and main-
" toin.in repair the sluicos'for supplying the water, together with the flume for
" correcting the same to the wheel for a distance of 12 fept from the face of
" the dock wall, from which front the said flume shall be constructed completed
" and maintained in repair by the said Ira Gould and Messrs. Thorne and
"Heward, the purchasers of the adjoining lot at their joint expense, and be so
-- »' placed that 8 feet of the breadth thereof should be upon the lot hereby leased
" with a partition formed so as to separate the water for each lot if necessary."
" That the said flume shall bo maintained by the said Ira Gould and the
'* occupiers of lot number 13 in such good and sufficient repair to the satisfao-
• " tion of the said Commissioners, as that no i^aste of Water- or danger to the
'• navigation of the Baid Canal may be likely to aris© by leakage therefrom or
"otherwise.". ^ ' ,.

^ That where the said flume shall cross under the space hereinafter reserved
«' for roadway, it shall be made at such a grade and in such a manner as l^e
'* Engineer of the said Commissioners shall direct." ^

*^ That the entire control and managemept of the said sinic^s and gullies,
" together with the machinery for regulating thie suppdy of watpr, shall be pro-
"j(^^ided, placed and. governed by the said Commissid^rs, and their successors
"lb x^ce as their officers, and shall not in any nianner whatever be interfered
'« with or regulated by the said Ira Gould, his executors, administrators, or

' „" assign*"

" That in the event of its being found necessary to reduce the amount of
'' water power granted to all the leasees of hydraulfc Tots now sold on account of
"^e too great current of waters through the canal, th^ said Commissioners
,r " ahali and may make a reduction in the supply hereby grantgd to the said Ira
" Gould, without being liable to reduce or allow ai^< partfi. of the rent hereby
" made playable." i *

" That in the event of temporary stoppage of the 8u\>plyl of water or a por-
" tion thereofi by reason of the same being required for die navigation of the said
" canal, or by, reason of irepai'rs or {ilterations being* deemed necessary to be

-^ ** madeto the siBne, or to meet the demands of extiwme high water in the Sf.
." Lawrence, or from frost or ice'or any other cause whatever, no abatbpient of

" *if rent s^all be allowed, nor any claim for compensation it^hatever be.alloW:ed or
" adnaitted on account theresf." : *

^ *' That the said Ira Gould shall pay all rates and taxes of whatever descrip-
" tion that may become payable in respect of theiot and water power hereby
" leased and the buildings that may be erected, and that he shall not subli^t the' -

/'

COURT OF QUEEN'S BBioH. 1868.

. • '

201

■" W. «d tl,.ir p,r. ,„ be ojrv^ .Xrfl^ -f". T' '!"«"■•'«>' »»

" "TdT -r- »C°^ ^-^alleSir ^ •~"-"'"» *^'

;;of «,e..M,„td„„-.g J.^;S**;i.*'^°^^^^^^ T^r- •

. « the nun»e, ,Dd to the extent herMnbefore mentlljT l- I "'''''"<' '"
" the coeditton mDMine k tem,^™" „ mentioned, (.nbjecl nevertheleffl to

".l^tbetthe^idXliLoreS L""T "' 1^" «""»0 -d
•; je™ he^hy granted, ZIZZ^l ^^d !» G^d" ht'h ""T''." "'
'■ lot of groond Md enppi, of w.t«, foT. fl.^ ? * , "* *"• "" »^''
" the .me d,,ll„„,Jj£„7 **„'„'''' '""'"'^r," of 21 j-ea», p^rided

•^ .abject to the JT^'^tTherl: '"* "T^ '"°'' ""»»
"with theeieoption of the miS ^^.^t . ^"i^"*™^ ""l '='"°'^"«"

;^o,..nd.h;:h..d:xrL'-srre «t^rrr

ther, ,n case it shonld be determined by the said ComS \ "** ^"■
" giant a lease of the said lot and snppi; S wit ruZ T'"' *'" ""' ***
;;t«ned.nthelastcovenan,)foraSe;L^^^^^ --

" tion of the term hereby irrantad th^t »!.-„ ♦!. .t Vt ^^ "^"^ *"« expira-

« or cau.e4t<^e paid tll'^d^ato^S^^^^^^

;; ing. fixture, ^d machine^ th!:;!;t t^f h^^^i^tj^ ''^^- ^^

« Sf^«T^ .^'^ '"" ^^'^ "P 9uiet possession -f the 3 iP I
b« Wthereon. at the e»pi«tion of the term hereby l^^^f 1"* '^^
Commu^ionera shall require it, upoq nayment of thA fhL i '. . ^® ""'^
•' ing.^, fixtures and machinery aa XlaW R LI *''*V'^"« ^^ *»"« build-
" be leased, that he, the s«id^^'GlXh;u Id ^Z the e ^' ?"" "'^"'^
« forther term, yield up the qui.t possession th'lft^^^^^^ 1X7^?^?
" ij^ improjements. fixtures, and machinery thatm^ClZl ^^' '""'^■
cUim or p^tence to be reimbursed for thT vail tC 71 °' ""'
" tion whatever, therefore, he the said Ira Gn„M i. T "i , ^^ ^ompensa.
•• second lease, in case it shall tZti^^^^^^^ hereby declaring that such
';gnsationfortheout,a,hen^S;^^Z^ o^m-

Qould

n.
Hairor.

««.

■^

m

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1858.

Oould u other improvements, fixtures and machinery in good order and condition and
The Mayor. Ac '* to yield the same up at the expiration of the said secoitd term, fair wear and
" tare, loss by fire or flood only excepted."

With such conditions of lease, I cannot perceive any domininm passing to the
tenant, or any qualified right of property which can bo carred out of the
right of the Crown, so as to vest a title in the Appellant. The subject matter
of the lease, is a hydraulio power a water lot upon which mills are to be con-
structed by the tenant, they are not in este, but in potse, are to be built for the
Crown, to which they must belong by thejule oedifidum solo adit, they are to
be paid for by the Crown at the end of 2i years. The Commissioners have
right oi entry at all times when necessary, the enjoyment of the subject matter
of the lease depends upon the supply of water which they are to provide, and
which they may alt(^tber stop upon non-payment of rent. The occupation by
the tenant is subject to mutual and concurrent conditions, infaeiendo, mutually
and reciprocally dependent npon lessor and lessee,.! can perceive no alienaUon
by the Crown in this contract, and on the part of tenant or lessee I can perceive
no right or semblance of property susceptible of being acquired or transferred to
third parties. There is no transferable interest witii which the covenantee is
clothed, to which the covenant can attach itself. It is expressly proyided that
the tenant shall not sublease. The covenant is a mere personal one, operative
only between the immediate parties thereto. What is there, which the tfloant
is at liberty tb hypothecate or to alienate ! Can he sell that which he is not
permitted to subldtte ! Can he substitute a stranger in his place, and compel
the Crown to continue towards him the supply of water power stipulated
for in the lease! Could the lease of the AppelUint be taken in execution,
and a purchaser, par decret, be put in possession adversely to the Crown f
The lease, is a simple building lease for 21 years, not retmoahle for ever, but
only for one term additional, and then upon altered conditions. I can find no
authority among the writers, who have discussed the question of emphyteutisi
to apply to the lease in question, in terms as it is made. All that the tenant
took was droit dejmtir, much more limited and fettered, than under the ordinarjr
bail d hyer. It has been said that the assessment in question is not upon the
land which is Crown property, but the buildings which belong to the tenant.
But the tenant never built for himself, he bound himself expressly to build for
the Crown, at the expiration of the term the buUdings are to be valued and
paid for by the Crown, to whom then do they belong, if not to the Grown-'! Is
the Appellant to be paid the price, and is the thing yet to be his! Every stone
and each pice of timber as soon as laid becomes CrowA property, not. to be
alienated or to pasft to a third party, but with the consent' of the Cirown.

A qutetion hiks also been raised, as to the application<.of the 92 section of '
the 14th and 15th Vict., Chap. 128, to the assessment in question, npon Uiis I
am also of opinion with the Appellant. This clause is a transcript of Sect. 96 of
the 8 Vict, o. 59, anterior to die 14 and 15 Vict., c. 128. By the terms of the
' lease, the property in question was under the description of ^ wharves and
grounds under me direction of the said last mentioned Commissioners.*' As
ing upon/ the Lachine Canal, it would lead to direct conflict, if the Cor-

pc
an
Pi

W(

pri
th<

Al

Co
8h(

La<
sou

T

/;

Ira I
the I
wha
powi
that

de2
lant
rcndi
et ce
12 e(
de ve
poss^

damn

tions

laque

autre

]

. deux

cotisa

su8-6r

appar

qui 8c

""quent,
■ *

COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1858.

203

would agam be exempt from taxation. Whether the L Z^Zdl^Z^
pnor or subsequent to the leases, is indifferent, if the iZnZt bT „nde "

ColVL? TJ]"'^ ^ ««" "^^^ «f the case. I believe the Judgment of the
LarhfntTT'/T ^ '^e^^-L'appelant poss^do sur les bords du canal de

str^NttirH^^^^

^laise le 27 ma, 1847, dans lequel les commissaires des travaux publics adssant

*te":a^d Ir^O^r^^^^^
* %t r ;\r '''''""***■■'' *'^'"'"'«'"t«^^ that certafe

^ htev ' f ■' , - ''"'^ *' '"'' ^""^ «'''*^ ^^* '"^^ ^«t«' ""t-^ie said Ira Go^i "

euTctr^r"'^^ "ctcelapourletermedear^s;

II o tT r T"" ''"""«"«™«"^ «» Receveur-G^nd!^!. >« somm, de ilOS

A r»p,r.Uo„<,e« .cme,.,e bail, ourr. toe ,e„„„*U po7»..Tto. to™..
... I. ,de„, <le «, bMl»e^ m.ie s'H 6Wt .i™i r.„„„|^ ,. .Sj^Ift Z

.2 e. ,3 » MM. T.„™. et bJI^T^I^^ 'J^Jl'''JZ''l
de «... d„ 4 jaio m», PApp.l..t . «,.i. i^ droiteTl Z; 1'^.'?
P«»«d« ii»!.te.a.t aree le lot No. M. | "'*' " '"

teMd&jembre ISes, d«m la COUP dai.Sim»i» l'A_».i . ,.
appartien. 4 8. M^«U : ,.e le, lieu, fo'n.e«'p.to d« tl et'l^l^r

■<• d

-/

204

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1858.

Oould Montreal, ot Mmt oxompts des elites cotisauons qui sont UUgah$, injutta ct
fholtoaror,*o. t;(<a!a<(nVe«. V»-« / jBf

L'lntimie s'est contont6e do presenter une defense aa fond* en fait Par
jugement du 30 avril 1858,1' Appelant a, 6t6 d6bout6 de sa demande ; il a ioter-
jet6 appel. ^ "

Cctte cause est d'une grande importance, non seulemont k raison de la prin-

cipalc question de droit qu'elle soul^ve, mais encore & raison des int^r^ts engages."

\ riusieurs autres personnes sont dans la m^m^ situation quo le Demandeur ; s'il

r^nssit k bire reconnaltre I'exemption qn'ii invoque, la ville perdra une portion

assez considerable de son revenu. .

La question h, examiner,, et dc laquelle d6pend la decision de cette cause,
est cello-ci :

X>ans I'ancicn droit fran^ais qui est celui du Bas-Canada, le cbntrat emphy- '
tctotique AOSit-il translatif de propri6t6 ? Et s'il avait cet effet, Tavait-il en eta-
phyt^ose temporaire comme en emphyt^ose perp6tuelle ?

Ge contrat a pris son origine dansle droit romain ; il fut adopts en France,
oii les institutions et les moeurs f<6odales, en modifiant sous quelques ri^ports,
ses regies' et son caractdre, assuj6tirent ce coptrat k otae th^orie 4t k une juris*
prudence qui lui furent yopres. \

" II est incontestable," dit an auteur modeme, Le Halleur,dans son histoire
de Vemphy^tiote, page 221^ <* qu'il ne faut pas s'attendre k retrouver dans I'ancien
droit frati^ais la jwre ^A^on'c romaine de I'empbyt^ose."

Oe contrat a done ses regies particuli^res, puisnes et dans le .droit romain
et dans le droit fran^ais.

Dans I'un et I'autre Je ces deux droits, on distinguait deux sortes d'emphy-
t^ose, Tempbyt^ose perp^tuelle et PemphytSose temporaire. Si elles ayaient
y des regies communes, elles en avaient aussi quelques unes qui ^taient propres k
chacune d'elles. C'est en partie la cause des controverses sans fin, auzquelles
les auteurs se sont livr^s sur cette mati^re, et qvi rendent si p^nible I'dtude de
cette partii^ du droit.

On {^ut examiner la qaestion sous plusieurs points de vue, entre aatres sous
le point die vue des droits seigneuriaux.

Oela aide consid6rablement k la solution, en ce qui conceme la nature et
I'effet da contrat emphyt^otiqae, dans le droit da Bas-Canada.

La plupart des auteurs feudistes se pronon^aient pour I'ourerture des droits
seigneuriaux "lorsqu'il y avait hourte ddUe, ou prcmite.^ Le plus grand nom-
bre des ooutumes, il est vrai, entre autres celle de Paris, ne conten^ent pas de
disposition expresse k cet 6gard ; mais il y en avaient quelques-unes qui con-
sacraient ce principe en termes formels. De ce nombre 6tait celle de Rheims,
- dont'le 163e article porte : " Pour Thdritage pris ii titre de sur-cens, emphytiose,
ou louage a plus de trente ans, ne sont dues vmtes, s'il iCy a lourte diliie^ au-
- quel cas seront dues ventes au Seigneur censuel par le preneur,. jusqu'i la concur-
rence des denier» par lui d^bours^s." (Coutumier ghUral, i. 2, p, 501, le col.;
Nmv. Ddnisart, t Y, au mot " emphy tfiose, § 2, p. 640, No. 3.)

Cet article de la costume de Rheims a form6 le droit commun, disent les au-

3srog«rdaient^donfe-4e-4>ail-cmphyt6at:

ptorau%-(

*

COURT 6p QUEEN'S BENCH, 1868.

20S

un acte d aUinaHan, un acte transhH/ de propriM ; et lorsqu'il y av.it denier, Goold
moursis cm^mt, ce contrat devetait done un cpntrat m6l6 de ventc ju.qn'A Th. M^ir
oncurrence d. ccs denien.. Cost pour cette ra»on q„'i, ,onn«it ouvert re'au,

ou Equipollent. A vente, qui ont cet effet Tel 6Ui| le droit comraun • tel 6tai
I'opinion de presquo tpus les auteurs. j *'"™rawn , w 6tait

r>.lZ^UrrTT'^\ I"""*"'"' ^"*'*»"^" i'*^''"'"'"' "«» "« *taient en
petit nombre- ffervi paralt 6tre le principal. Lo BystAme de ces auteurs con

2 A soutenir que Pemph^t^ose n'est pas un acte'd'ali.natio: q«'el n'e t" ' .
pas autre cho«e qu'un bail d/e»ne ou d hyer; en d'autres mots, ci contrat nW
suivant eux, qu'un simple contrat de louage. " *"*

C'cBtenpartant ainsi de ce faux systime, que Hervi dans sa thiorie d^M
maUire,/^dale,etcen,ueUe..n^t venn A Jclure que IWhytdo^ n't -

pas sujette au droit de ««^. on relief, t 2, pp. 320 etLv. ; et^' Ue donne
pa^ non pins, ouverture au quint on anx hd,, t. 3, pp. 92 et sn vanL • maisTon

»1h1.V^ '*'°' '^"P'^y*^ **""?<>«•>« -e t'ransferait ancune ^ce de'

*««» d /«me cm * 7o««ye, t. 2, p. 333 ; ce que JftrKn traite de piroxe
comme on le verr. plus loin, dans se. Que.tim,de droit Ed b 8o de^p^ '
mot «emphyt6ose," 1 6, §. 6, p. 278. ' "^®' ""

Remarquons quo ffervi n'a sontenn cette doctrine que nonr l'*.mnh,f^
^-jporaire. Quant A celle faite , perp6tuit*, elle :tarsuCt lu r^ntl
pail & cens, on un vrai bail a rentA " ♦ o « ooo a . , ' ™ ""

vente, ou comme nn contract m6I6 de vente." «q«^"ent a

1« J^J!.'^*^ r^™"", ^"' J' "''"^ ^" "«""•'«'• » f«"t done examiner/lequel est
le mieux fond* dans les vrais principes de la matftre. e^equel est

^Qne l'emphyt6o8e temporaire pr^sente qnelqu'analorie ou aneloL r«nn,^
c W avec le contrat de louage, c'est ce qu'on' ne peuf ni" 'SuSet
d ffdre Egalement dans quelques points esslntiels, Zi ce qu'on nt pen '
plus nier. • Et c'est ce qui a fait dire i plusieurs anteurs, en parltde cette

analogie et de cette diff6rence, que l'emphvt6ose Etait mc3^^ ^ >

cpait et du louage et de la vente. f * ^" P"**'

dit'^^r '"•*"? ^"''" ^^ P" ^* ^^^o^^^^on de W empKytiotigues '»

W 7, aumot^C;;;t^7p.T38t sTno^T"" '''•" ^"^^^^
-Puis Duvergier, sous le No. 166, en parlant d'un arrAf ^^ i- j '

ISoliqae aiit«ri«,t ,„ code oWl, aj„„,e • « On v tl,Z. „ . ^ "°''''^-

»p<?ci«;r«jytjwr(fa»r^jyfe«particuliares."(l) »"V<n», nn contrat .

II

i.**

Ift'f

#:•'«

(1) II ^tait question dans cet arrfit de i«25 .I'nn u„-i . ,, .
fait pour 99 ans. *^ "" *""* emphyt^otique du 2 aoftt 1»60

.:-^:;-.-.,

206

COURT OP QUEENS BENCH, 1868.

— O^d En effet co bail a uno tres grande analogio aveo plusieun autres actos d*ali£-

Tbtllvor, Ae. natioD, eiitro aulroB, surtout dang Ipa partiea les plus ouentielies, avoc le bail k

fief, k cens ou & rdnte fonoi^re non rachetable. Ilcnrion de Pansejf, dans son

analyse du •' Trait* des flofs," de Dumoulin, p. 346, a ins^r* la note suivante,

extraite du president Bouhier sur la coutume de Bourgogne :

" On doit convenir que le flof resaemble tellement k rcmphyt6ose qu'on pent
dire que Tenaphyt^Oite a fourni Tidde du droit des fiefs, en efiut il y a si peu do
difi^rence entre I'un ot I'autre, que los anciens qui n'avaient pas encore subtilis*
sur ces matifiros confondaiont souvent ees duux espdccs de contrat et donnaient
i I'un le noin de Tautre."
,. Fonmaur, t. 1, p. 08, No 120 in fine. " .... L'amphyt^ose ressemble au

♦>., ^"' ^ **"' *" *'*°^ <!"-* ''»" «* I'autre assujetit le redevable k une prettation

-^ V annuelle et au droit de lods, en c* de. vunte, el!e ressemble encore a quel-

le qu^dgard aux baux & rente foncidre, ou k locaterie perp6tuelle."

j)^j^^ jgg Prescriptions, p. 340: " . . . . L*emp6renr a encore decid6 qu'il

' (le baiileur ou Inaltre) aurait la cinquaotidmo partie du prix de la vente, en y

coTMcnton^ A i^tve«<i«<a}te le nouvel ^mphyt^ote. C'est & mon sens rort^tn« fit

la cause des droits de lods et de retenuo, qui so<it en usage parmi nous k regard

* des fonds qui sont charges de cens emphj/tiotiqita ou seigneuriaux."

Chttfot, Tip. t. 6, au mQt " emphytfiose," p. 680, le col. : " En France, dans
los pays de droit Acrit, I'emphytAotie faite par le seigneur de Tb^ritage, a le
m6me eflfet que le bail k cens en pays coutumier, et Temphyt^ose faite par le
simple propri^tairo de I'hfiritage, y est ordinairement confondu aveo le bail k
rente fonciere." , ' , ■

Prevott de la Jannis, t. 1, p. 5580. " Le bail icens par son essence empot'te '
la retention do la soigneurio directe, on doit dire la mdme chose du bail k
champart, et du bail emphyttotique.V

Fdnmaur, dejk cit6, " quoique dans les pays de droit 6crit, notre commerce
avec le droit Romain nous ait ,fait adopter les expressions d'emphyt^ose et de
pr6lation, le vrai est pourtant qu'il n'y a pas de veritable emphyt^ose parmi
nous, mais seulement des baux k cens comme dans la France coutumiere."

JVouw. Denisart, t. 7, au mot " emphytfeoSe." § 1, No. 6, p. 638, autoritd
semblable, et § 2, No. 8, p. 640.

" Quoique les einp^yt^oses emportent alienation, elies ne donnent pas cepen-

dant otfVerture aux lods et ventes. Le m^nie principe qui d^charge de ces

't droits seigneuriaux le bail k rente non rachetable, milite en faveur de TempbT-

t^ose. Dans celle-ci comme dans le baU k rente non rachetable, la redevancd

^ . ou la rente represente I'hdritage." •

" Mais s'il y a iine somme d'argent donn6e ou promisee, les lods et ventes sont

dus proportionnellement aux deniers d^bourses, ^arce qvte Vacte est alors mSU

^ de vente. _ " ,

Boutciller,' ^^ Somme rurale," aux notes do Le Caron, sur le titre 63, p. 384 :

"Quant, a I'emphyt^se, encore que Z6no cmpereur en ait fait un contrat

8epar6 de I'emption U de la lobation, toutefcfis il leur est' grandement

i , 8(jmblab!e." [1] "^

« * : .- 1 — ^ '■ — ' : ^ : ,

:/

(1) FreminviUe, t. 5, p. 101, dh aa "Pratique nniverselle des terriers."

\

v.m^my-'

"<, r * ;f^PS^^r»¥pF^sr*^S*fT™s^f?^^

.1

COURT OP QUBBN'S BENCH, 1868.

.wIZ^'ulT^ ■"' '•''"*' ''-* '" P>"-r*po.6 1'.voc.tdel'«ppeli.nMit.
ilan««ontr«UAdnfoiiasre,t. l,soMieNo.81,p. 1«6: ' Th.

'\K moin. d«i gtipulations les pin. expreues et le. plu. clairM, il faut inter-

-,^ duit«s et jut Je rapprochdient nngulUremmt du haU d cm,.

''ri' «hvn* !?'k n^/** •"«•"''"'•»•»* q-olq-- Mw difference, entro IW

. f *^ ^* i' * '^"^ *'''^*"'""« en,pr«nt6e plutAt an droit Romain. qu'.u

' ■ «'!f«i!T'"'' ^^ '"' '" """^"•^ -ivante:-.. Mai. ce. deux Jtrat.

" r^w TT*;? .i* re«iembl«nce oapitde, c'eet qne I'un et I'autre Iai««ient

j^U..ter. entre le bailleur et la chc«e baill6e nri lien de d^pendahce qui r6dui

^le drou du bailliet. A «„ ,^^ ,„^,^„,, .C'e-fque J. le b^i

•mphyt6ot.que comme d«n. le bail k cen^ une prertation annuelle venalt tAmoi-

gtoerde hnftnont* de pomtion du preneur. C'eet enBn que I'un et I'autre

contrat. fa«a,ent porter la perte toUle par le propri6taire direct, et la perte dm-

tielle par le ditenteur." V^ *^

mmT"^ ^' *^^* " ^'«'"P''yt««« «» 'e bail k cen. ne different prei^ue que dir\
J'lu cit6 oe. autorite.. pour d6montrer plu. clairement la ju.te«K, ^e la

^ .ux^'2riJ^rr"»f " '•.P«>P'««t*- Ce.t ce qu^je v«. Atablir, en ajouUnt

m^^^ /'**" ^'" **"' *"''* «• Po^"*'^- «"torit«. encore plu.
directe. et plu. pr6ci«». D wrait oiwux de di^uter cette que.Uoi. Z^^

S Lr;^.? ''"f ^*r ^^-''- 8'il est vrai que dane'cerdem' r^t .-

devait .e r^du.re i b,en peu de chow. En effet comment Z,^r le droitde

UZZSZ'"^'^ '?; ''"*^;*'" '~'*'« preprint. deceXbX
1« d..l.nction, ., elle e.t faite, est d'une .ubtilit* trop grande, priu^ qu'^jn d^ve

.'yarrfiter un momenf Di,on. plut6t que ce diiit du bailWr LaU Z
n6ce««,«ment re.treint 4 la retention du L.«»Ve direct et tie 7p^U et 4
rex^,ce.eca.^h6ant^.fa/«„^rf„^^,^,„,,^j^,^^,^^
ntage. c'est-M.re^dan. le cas de commue r6.ultant de la d^meure du preneur

^n?no^"^ r 'r "°T'^'"* prou«„c6epar lestribunaux qui Vplus .'ou^

pour, acquit^r. Au«,i le. auteurs, mfime ceux qui out .ontenu que remphyt6o8e
empon»,re to„mll6e par eux A uu ..imple contVat de louage, S'i.ait pa. t^X ^
^Z.fTf '?*■"' """""^"'" «» *^"* autrement dl'u. Pemphy Ct
V2^T P T '"*' '''"™''^' '* ^"««^'^" ^« '» »"-'««- d-^ droit de 1

Tn 1 rJ:?'Z!!7 *^T"''"-' ^^*"'"" P"-«'>- ''^ ''^ <»-*"- «dml
n^* WA ?r ."^'^ **"*'"J"^ **^^^'«"«« ««««»tielle entre Pemnhytfeoee k ner-
p6tuit6etl'emphyt6o8e& temps? "Dpnyieose a per-

ava^ITemSZ'' ^'"^l '«»^°»""'^ '^^'"pbyt^o^e temporaire avait 6t6 ponnue
avapt emphyt^ose perp6tuelle. Nous lisons dans le R6penoire de GuvTt t 6

preneur qu'un. jomssance k tenips, soit pour'la vie du preneur, soit pour deux ou

. - ^ C '

• 1 ; • ■ -.- ■" .

OOBld

y.

i

-)' :^^

Hth

108

GmM
nalbgrgr,

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENOM, 1858.

4-

troit generations ; o'eat pour oela qu« les loii romainoa n'ont donn6 le titre do
*o. Migneurio au droit de TemphyMoteV que qtuuid Fanphythdoic ett devcnue ptr-
pituelk."

Nouv. Dmitart, t. % aa mot "cmphythioBO," g,' 1, No. 3 : " L'emphytAoae
itait en usage choz lea Roniaina. Dan$ $on origtne, elle n'avait pour objet que
lo ddfriohemont et la culture dea terraina ateriloa. Lea propriitairoa qui ne pou-
vaiefit affermer cea terroa k cause dea d^penaea que lo d6friclieniont ontraiuait,
lea conc6daient/iour un certain tempt, moyepnant modiquo re<levance."

Loyteau, du diguerpiuement, liv. 1, oh. 4, No. 27 ; Ila (Ics Romains) avaient
romphytiose, qui, de ton origine et promi^re inatitution, 6tait temporelle, com-
ine a bion prouv^ Dumoulin aur la rubrique du titre 2, et aur I'article 56, glos. 4."
Duvergier, du hmge, No. 146 ; D'abord les emphyt^oses furent temporairet;
anauito ellea devinrent perpituellei, aana cependant que la perpituiti fftt conai-
d6r6o comme un 616ment easentiel." Troplong, dej4 cit6, rndnaet lui-m^me.
Apr6a avoir dit, p. 146, que lea concesaiona k bail cmphyt6otique 6tatent " habi-
tuollement perp6tuelles," il ajouto k la page 14T : "Toutefois, il y avait dea
excmples do concessions de bions coinmunaux faitcs k temps. Paul nousapprend
'cotto circonataace. Mais il parait qu'ellea sortaient dea habitudks ordinairoa, ot
que los vdritablea tenures vectigaliennes et emphy tiotiques 6taient perp6tuellefe."
Le mot ''habituollemont" dont Troplong s'est servi dans co passage, n'eat
pas ainsi employ^ par lui pour prouver que Temphytooso k perp6tuit6 avait
exists avant remphyteoso k temps, dans le droit romain, mais seulement pour
dnoncer que, dans I'opinion de I'auteur, Temphyteoso perpStuelle, une^foia eon-
nue, devint plus •* habituelle " que Tempkyteose temporaire.

U est dotic constant, d*apr^ le tdmoignage des auteurs qui viennent d'etre
cit^s, que, chez lea Romains, remphyteose temporaire avait prec6d6 Tompbite-
ose perp6tuelle. ^i je tiens & conatater <\e fait, peu important en Iui-ra6me, c'eat
aenlement pour faire preaaontir & Favance qu'il eat plus que .vraisemblable que
dans Porigino de ce contrat, la doctrine des iurisconsultes Romains sur la trans-
misaion, du droit de propri6t6 oomme 6tant I'un^de sea effeta, avait du s'appliquer
k Temphyt^ose temporaire, de m6me qu'elle a'appliqua plus tard k TempbyteoBa
perp6tuelle lorsque celle-ci prit naisaanoe. Le doute est d'autant moins permia k
cet ignrd, qu'on point de fait sur la question de translation de propriety comme
etant un des effets de I'emphyteose, il n'y avait pas de difference, dans les deux
jurisprudences du droit Romain et de Fancien droit frany ais, entre Temphyteosi
perpetuelle et Tempbyteoae temporaire. II n'y en a pas non plus, sur la m6ma
question, entr»cesdeuz droits e\, lenouveau droit de la France q'uiadmet encore
I'emphyteose k temps, bien qu'il ait r^pudie I'empbyteose perpetuello. Quan^
je dis qu'il n'y avait pas de difference k cet egard, je ne pretends pas dire cjpie
c'est 1^ I'opinion unanime des auteurs. Je sais'que quelques auteurs, ITerve
entre autres, ont ete d'un sentiment contraire ; ipais encore une fois, disons-Ie,
c'est parcequ'il avait adopte le principe errone que lo contrat jsmphyteotique..
n'etait pas autre chose qu'un contrat de huage ; ce qui, sivec raison, a ete traite
de paradoxe fM Merlin.

Voyons d'abord la definition que les auteurs donne de TEmpbytiose. '
'ifomat, liv. Ij tit. 4, aect^'lO, No. 5': '* La Irafislallon de propriety que fait

t .

>J

9f^r

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1868.

909

I'«mpbjrt6«,o, c»t propo.tionn6« k I. nrture de co contr.t oi fc mallr. l^ailU h
/^ et reHentla rente, et p.r oette convention, il m fait comme unpartage duThc
droit de propriM, entro celui qui bailie 4 rente et I'emphytdote."
Wb«.. Z>.«««W, t. 7 .u mot "emphytAo^e." p. 588, §, 1. No. 1, « L'emphy-
xWoje, p„« dan. «.n vintable .on. «,t «n contrat par lequel le propri6talro d'un

charge quo le proneur b&Ura ou amfiliorera, ot qu'il paler, au bailleur une
red^e^nce annuellc." No. 2. « Le bail empbyt^otique ^ut..tre pe,^;;:, ou 4

" Quoiqu'il no ioit qu'a temp., il ne fiintpa. le confondre avec u J .imple bail k
longue. annfie. II en diffire en ce que le bail k longuc. ann6e. no tran.fare que
lo droit do jou.r, «u heu que lo baU emphyt6otique. /mn^Vre au preneur une
prop„6t6. qui, pour itre rMuble, n'en e.t pa. mfin,.rieller No. 6. « Dan>
te^pay,cmtumier,, I'empbvtAoM e«t rarenie,u porpStuelle. La dur«e en c«t
ordinairement flx6o k uu tom^s qui excAdo lo nombro delS^an„6e^ et mi ne '
surpasse pas celui de cent ant" -h^;-^ «l«ii no

" Quoique le preneur k bail emphytiotiquo k torap. n'acquiiiro pwT^^mjif.
/«trtJapropr.6t6du fond, qui l«i a 6t6 co„c6d6 4 ce litre, il joSuepeSl
pendant la durie dc sm, ball, de. droit. attacl,6. Alu qualiti de propriitaire
II pent hypothfiquer, al,6ner et vendre I'biritage emphytfeotique, .auf la r6.oIu-
Haf" ** «'6anc.or. ot do. acqu6rour. 4 I'oxpiration du temp. fix6 par

§, 2, p. 540, No. 2: "Le. craphyt^ose^ par une .uiJ^-de ValUnation qu'ellcs
renfcrment, .ont a«,ujett.e. au droit de contiome ou demi centifime denier,.elon
que leur dur6o est au-dessu. ou au-desgou. de trente an.," p. 541, mns le No 4
Apre. avoir condamn6 I'opinion do iZer.rf qui a«imile Pemphyt6ose au .imple
ba,l 4 ferme, les autelir. ajoutent, " Quoique cetto cp^ce d'emphyWce, (colle 4
temp.) ne tran.fSro qu'une propri6t6 r6«,luble. lepreneur esi cepcndant reg d6
^comm,propritavrepen4ant)aduree duhail: ce qui nou«s^ parait .uffire pour
Z!;T' a*"" * ^""'T ^"^ ^'^' ""' "*"'"'^" *1"' donn/ouverture au relief,
anprtn'Sur'' "''"«' ^* P*""^^ '* ^^^ "Wait pa. 6t6^xpres.6raent impondo

Rep.^i^Guyot,t.Q,m mot, " emphyt6ow," p. 681, 2'' col. > "Lebailcm-
phyt6oUque est une alienation de la propri6t6 utile au profit du preneur pendant
tout le temp, que do.t durer le bail, la propri6t6 directe demourant au baillcur "
quer rhSge' ^"^""^ ^P"^"^^' peut vendre, ali6ner, 6changerou hypoth6.

" De ce que le% baux emphyt6otique. emportent alihuikmi, quelque. coutnmes
out voulu qu.l. donna.8ent ouverture au retrait lignager. "Baux 4 99 an. ou

i^t" r^ 2?^^*: ':f^ r'!^^ '• coutuL\pari, ".onts:;^
-strait, p. 682, 2e. col. «Le. cr^ancier. du preneur d'un bail emphyl6otiquc

peuvent faire wusir et vendre la jojiiiaance de ce bail. (1)
/Vm.W/fe, t 6, p. 98 : " Le propri^taire de. heritage. donn6. 4 emphy-

t6ose. enal^i,^e ^Propriit6uHleenl.^nn.d.preneJpendanttou^^

Mould

trt.
Mtyor, Ac.

(1) Nouv. DenUart, 1. 1, an mot «• emphylkose," p. 642, No. 8.
Actea de Notori«t<," p. 4» " acte du 19 FaUlet mV'

C'lf

tio

COURT OF QUEEN'S BINOH, 1868.

TkaMaror,

du bait, il lui reato teuUimmt, 1* fra^M dirtetti, d'od il rAculta^que IcilliAriUgw

*<*. donntm k emphyt^CoM, peuvent dtrt AohnngAa, donn^ii, mAm« vendua, en oh»r-

geant I«ii acqu^^ronra d'oi6cutertouto« lea cUumm du bail, «iu<|uoIh cm l«uni droit*

•oront Atointado plain droit, lomque lo toinpn do la cono«anioD sera expire, remtuto

/ thim jurt dofHii, remflvitur ^ju» aeeipieHti$.

p. 99, " L« pronaur d« remphyt^oaa p«ut en hypoUiAquor lea hAHtagea,
iQaia ello ne aubaiato qtle pendant le coura du bail, k Teipiration duqnel, le bail-
leur oil aea h^ritiem lea repronnent auaai libroa qu'ila ont ^tA'^donn^a." , ,.

P. 101 . '* Quelquea-ana ont admia on controverae que le bail omphyt^otiqtie
ne tranRf6rait paa la propri6t6, et que le preneur ne devait 6tre conBid6n6 que
comnae un formior ; co qui eat oontrmre k la loi 12, cod. defund. patrim : emph^
teuearii/undorum domiuL Le preneur eat appel6 aoigneur ; il lui appartient \m
dominiU dana lea choaea tranaport6ea par ce contrat."
-^ P. 102. Apr^a avoir rapports le paaaage ci-demna dt6 de Domai, Pre-
minville ajoute : " on un mot, le droit d'nn empbyt^ote, oat celui (2'un wax pro.
prUtain^xfiX peut pourauivre toua lea droits attaoh^a k aon emphyt^pao, en aon
propre nom, parcequ'il eat le veritable et imm6diat aeigneur de la dioae." ** Le
oontrat d*emphyt6oae eat ai bien une alUnation qu'il eat aujet k retrait, ai yrai
que la ooutume do Paria en a fait un article."

Prtvott de la Jannis, t, 1, p.p. 219 et 230 ; La propri6t6 ainai retenue et
qui o'eat plua oxoro6e que par cea devoira <^t cea rederancea dont fe-fonda est
charg6 onvere le propridtaire, a'appelle Seigneuri edireete, et la jouiaaanAlaccor^
die k perp6tuit6 Seigneurie utile. Par Ik il arrive qu'il y a deux propri«im tti^-
lidum de la mAme choae, o^aia aous diffdrenta rappnrta."

Ferriirt, dana aon grand commentaire, t, 2, p, 893, l!)'o 1. anr I'artiole 149
de la ooutume, qni asaujetit le bail emphyt^otique au retrait lignagor ; " La rai-
aon on est," dit-il, que cee baux contiennent une etpice cPaliituition qui iquipolle
d la vente, comme dit Tiraqueau.^

" En' offet cea baux Equipollent k vendition, et produisent une vrue tratula-
lotion de propriiti en la personne des prenoura ; de \k vient qu'ila aont obligia
aux charges r6ollos et redevancea annuellos aux-quellea lea heritages aont aujets.
(1)." Potbier, des Retraitt, No. 28, appelle " Seignourio utile," et " droit r6el,"
le droit de I'umpbyt^otc, et dit que o'est pour cela qu'il est sujet au retrait.
,^ - Bacquet. " Baux des boutiques du Palais," p, 599 ;" autre chose est parler
d^ae inf6odation ou d'une emphytSosc, qui sont. . . transUtti/t de lapropriiU
et possession utilo aux h^riticrs, et cessiblcs par une libre disposition aoit entrevifii
ou k cause do mort." , i

Renauldon, " Diet, des Fiefs," t. 1, au mot " emphytfeoae," p. 260, No 76 ;
" L'ompliyt6o30 est coinmun6ment regard6o comme une aliination ; mais elle
no transfdre que la propri6t6 utile au preneur, tandis que la propri6t6 directe
demeure au bailleur. .' -'

Argou, t. 2, ch. 28, p. 300 : " Le bail emphytiotique, ou Pemphytiosc, k

^le prendre dans son veritable sens, est un contrat par lequel le propri^taire d'un

heritage ou d'une maison en ceife k un autre hi propriiti utile k la cnarge que

I'emphyt^otey fertfdei^ am61iorationa, et paiera, outro cela, une redevance annuelle

(1) Ferriire,<i, 0. t. 1,'axa I'art, 78, p.p. 1163—4.

/

m

COrUT OF QUKKNS BENCH, 1868.

til

|»n b»lllouroiir«coiiniil*t..n*'«.UIi4S«li|iioiiiiotliroi;t««iu'IUWr8M)rv*e." Cell*
r«nt« ou roduviitiua «at ii|>|)«lld« ptHtiim, uu mnon emphy Uioiiquo. Th*

Trupltmg, (JHiH Mill traits du Utmye, « «(>p«lld " dumiiino impurfwl," le do-
iiikino que traiixK&ro I'oiiipliyt^OM, wit qu'tll* *o!t porpituollo, ao^ qii'ello mU
tempofHir*. Cwt do ni6iiie qu'il a atiMi, nu iii6mo endroit, d««igii^Me difiiiain«
qu«, trtiwfiro lu bail 4 cuim. II m appliqiid Im in6mo ddnoinitiatioti, 4 Tun ot 4
Pautre ; «t o'*tait «uivaiit lui, oo qui conttiluait une reMumhltince capitiiU ontro
cea d«ux contrat*. Dant un autre tindroit du ni6iiie ouvrage, t. 1, p. 108, il a
cru devoir d^iignur noun un autre nom !e tLnuiine da I'l'mphytAote. II l'» qua-
lirtd de quan Jomtim; timprunUnt cette exprcisiou k C^jaa.

Cctte dorDijtre ddnoinination, li ello 6uit eiacto, devait-elle, dans lea id6et
do Tmptong, inodifior lu cnraclAre «l lea effota que le coiitrut eiiipliyt^otiqu* u
ouB juBqu'4 present; ou bion, n'al-il voulu quo siilmlitiuer une oiprouion k uno
, autro coinino 6tnnt une oxprostion plus convenabio et plus propre pour d^aignor
lo domaiiu do I'empliytioto, Rann n^aninoins que colte nouvolle denomination
dflt oxercor aucune influouce surlo caractAro ot la nature do co dtmainr^ toU
que rocoiKJUs daus le droit, aurtout daim rHncion droit friincnis. Cost ce qu'il
«4t bion diffluilo,.in6ino iiiipoHBible do comprondro, nprcs avoir lii la longuo dis-
A,<ertalion dans, laquello il s'ost ongiig6 k cut Agard, dissurtitioii tout i^ fait in6ta-
• physique, ct assur^moiit plus subtile qu'ulilo. II oli«rche k cornba^ro I'opinion
des auteurH qui avafont recoimu la distinction du'domaino do propria* on
" doraaillo direct" et on " domaine utile/'ofqui I'avaiont nppliqu6o k I'empliy-
t*080. II combat ainst I'opinion non Rculement de ceux qui attribuaiont.4 I'em-
phyt6oso k temps ToflFot d'op6rer la translation du d,tmaine utile en la porsoiino
du preiipur, mais encore do ceux qui n'attribuaiont cot effot qu'4 romphytiose
4 pcrp6tull6, ontre autres, I'opinion de Dumoulin qui 6ta,\t du nombrodo cos dor-
niers, et de qui Tmphtig a cru devoir dire k cotte occasion, p. 175 : " On rotrouvo
lei l'inoxp6riouce indocile qui siguale trop souvent los excursions de Dmumlin
dans lo domaine du droit liomain." Uemarquons nianmoins quo dans le cours do
•a dissertation, ot sans doute p^ur mieux fairo gofttor son opinion, du moins au
point do vuo de la uquvolle legislation /ranfaue, Troplon/a 6l6 forc6 de re-
copnaltro quo, dans I'ancien droit; I'emphyt6o80 avait d'autres d^ements quo ceux
qu'il cberche k lui attribuor : " Mais nous " dit-il " qui cherchons pr6ci86mcnt A
d6gagor I'empbyteoso dea iliments qui Fabiiorhaimt dan$ Vancien rigime, nous
qui voulons la retrouvor dans son itat normal, nous no sauiions attribuer k I'em-
phyt6oto lea droiu deprnpriiti dont le baildccna inveatiaaait le vassal, " p. 181.
Cependant k quelques pages de 14, il lui avail attribud cos mfemes droita.

Ce u'est done qu'apres I'avoir, dans i-a pensio, dogag^o de cos dl6inents
qu'il admettait quo rempbyteoseavait dans I'ancien di-oit, que Trophng on vient
k la conclusion que le domaine transf6r6 par l'eraphyt6o8o n'est qu'un quaai
domaine ;^ai8, pour cdliclure njnsi, il est obligi do dire " que le plus sftr serait
de no paa parlor de domaine utile en cette matiere." p. 182, (1 .) " Car en droit
Romain," avait-il d'abord observi, " fe domain© ntile est reconnu," p. 177.

MiQMr, At.

(1) Oependaat il en avait parl« dans son traits des privileges et hypotheqaes, " t 2
No. 405. ' y> t 1 t

212

Tb«

UovM

COURT OF QljURNH

'J'

, 1868.

"^1

.^

Hrtll bitii vrai qne ootte dbtlnntlon mtm h il,mn!m« AWi «i U domains
*• ^.hj., qaU 4t« luJmi.. dan. r.i,oi«„ .Imit Fran^.K t,W |)« „«o du dr.,it Ilo-
mdnf Toat, .a conlr.lr«, porUi h, oroir« ,,,i'i.ll« » AtA rmprunW. .u« pri„dpfl«
d« c« droit d«n. l«N,uel, mi outr«, il «mbU qu« oW U contr.l mAmo .!• r««,phy-
tdoM, qui {•„ fuit n»ltr«. En offnt voici ce quo nous li.K>n. dan. I. premier t^m«
dM " DiwMirlaUon. «<h1»U" ,|o /fMrUm ,U hiMfj/, au mot "can^" §0-
"On inv«nU du tomp .l.m Kni,,ormin.un «m/m< jMrticulitr qui fbt app«IA .m-
pbytAo*!." On trouva qu'jl AUitJ[u»]o d« dpnnor unu aotion au prtneur pour
revmdtquer I'l.AriUgp d« non chef ot pi)u^^ierc6r toui loa droita crth<?crnant c«t
heritage. C«tt«i action fut appplAo.utilo, metid utilU, c'At-4-<lir« une aolu)n fon-
d«« rar uno con.idAration d'^qultA ; maia I'aotlon qui appnrtenalt au bailiour ou

veritable propri«t«ir«, fut appfllAo directe

"Or la di»tin<tion quo ItMUlomnina avaiont fait« ontra {'action ntlfo ot I'aotlon
dlroct«, A I'Agahl den I.AritHKon baillAn k porpAtuitA aou. uiu»rod«vancoannuoIle
produimt la dintinotlon ontro le domaino direct ot le donuitae uUlo, ot Ton n«
.Uwit plua quo l« pronour avait I'aotlon utilo, rnnit qu'il avait le domaino ou la
propriAt* utile. Cent co qui a AtA fort bion oxpliquA par CoquilU iiur la coutunifi
do.Nlrernoia; ot quoiquo oo loit uno choM trfta tiipple, olio a pirtirtant ombar-
ranA plusioura autours, leiiquolt, no voyant pat o«tt« origino, ont dit que la dia*
tinction de la propriAtA ou do la Solgnourio dirocto, d'aroo la propriAt* utile, eat
une invention dos ancien* Fran^ai^ ou de quolqu'qn doa peuplos qui d*mombrArent
rempire Romaio.

•♦ Voila CO qui rogardo I'origine de cotto diviiion do la Seigneurio privAo «n
directe et utile.

Cetto opinion out adoptAo par Merlin, dan* sea "QuoBtiona de droit," t e aa
mot "emphytAow," §§.5, p. 275, Ed. in 8Ado 1829, qui dit que JtenriJi de
Pantry " Atablit parfaitomont quo si Is distinction de la propriAtA en domaino
direct et on domaino utilorn'est pas Acritedana los lois Romaines, c'est du moina
do COS lois qu'ello tiro soo. origino.". '

II n'y « rien do plus cohnu dans I'ancion droit Franyais que cotte division de
, la propriAtA en domaino .Kroct ct on domaino utilo, o'est I'un dos prineipauz
olAments do nos lois qui riglont ctjiffectenlla transmission do la propriAtA dea
hAHtagoB, quo cet AlAment ait AtA crAA par I0 droit Romain, ou qu'il no YwAkih
en- France, que par ItfsyRtAigofAodal. '

Et toujours est-il vrai que sous co dernior syst^mo, cot AlAment affectait
tellorijent Pemphytoose en Franco, que Trophng lui mAmo, dans un passage dAjA
cito, n'a pas pu 8'omp6ohor do le reconnaitro, lorsqu'il a dif, p. 160. "II faut
intorprAter co cor^trat avec les modifications que los moeurs fAodales avaiont in-
' troduites, 01 qui le rapprocbaient singulifiroment du bail k cons." Encore Tro-
plmg est-il obligA d'admettro la translation d'un quan domaine. Mais quelle
serait la nature du droit dont cetto expression prAsento I'idAe f No serait-ce pas
un droit rAel, une espAco do propriAtA par lui-m6rne,un^e8pAcede domaine dans
la chose ellc-memc ?
« ^pmaine in^ait," si Ton veut, suivant Troplomf, mais qui n'en serait pas ~

, moms un domaine aussi rAelloment transmis au preneur que celui qui I'est par

'le bail a fiefon A cens, ou i rente fonciAre. ^

\ -. ■ , ~ , . ^ ■ '" ■ ■ ■ -

•<*-

i^ife

■1,-%

1 V ,«>

m

^

e.pU.1. qu.l r^nr,«i-«Ut 4 IV«,,,l.yt^.««, «t ,„ Uil 4 c«n.d.n.r.n«Un<lr«lf.Th.

. oAUlt toujour. I. mA,„e,km,i„^^|0tt 00 Mv.nt .ut«ur. Et .W-on J.ni.i-

„ •»i..4 d« .l.ro .,1.0 ]«, pron«Mr 4 (mil 4 Un n'^Uit ,.h« pro,,ri6tMr. f Pourquoi

nfl r,ooni,«iir..t.«„ ,,„ cetu, <,u»lit6 4l'emphyt*ol«. ,,ui4<,u«, ««u. c« r.pport, II

7 » on« " r««<,mbl.nr« c.pit»Io" «ntro rfl.t.phyt4o«> «t l« b«il 4 c«u» }

IWZ'"""' ""•'°'7"*'«» 'J^fl""'"'" 'ju«,rn.,,fc«y, 4 I. page 174. doon. d.

par !• droit Roniain," .'acoordo parfaitomont avoo Topinion d«. autour. qui attri- '
buiilMt aw deu« oraphyWioao. la (raiialation du domaifko utilo. ..

L.mpbyt6<>.e, dit il, n\,.t pa. wul.ment un contrat qui a pour but I'amAlio-
«tton d«. torroa .tiriio^ <e,i «„coro uno convention par la.,uello un propriM»lr»
«»«*<« dperp4tuit4, ou pmr un long lemp,, un terrain ln^me productif, 4 1'effet.
p«rlepr«n«ur,don joulr moyonnnant une modiquo relevance annuolle. e« de
nepauvo^r r^^ttre urivd par le amcMant qu^en au de non pairmmt du canon.

2r,^Umg d.t encore, au No. 40, p. lot, que la twite reconduction n'6Uit pa. '
applicable onmat.Are d'emphytioae, "parco que ce control op*rait un dinL,.
brementtrop grave de lapropr{it4» C. d*n,embrement, «'il Pa appel6 quelquefoia
quan domam. d 'apr^- C^'a; il I'a .u«i .ppel6. oomme on I'a d6j4 vu, - do-
maine trtlparfuit," inaia en m6mo tampa wrablablo fcoolui op6r« par le bail 4 ^
c6M,ce.t.4Hlire, " le domaine utile " de I'ancien droit franjait et dea meilleura '
commentateun do co droit. '

^ MaiH ce que Trophmy dit do plu« Important domme applicable 4 notre o«p4ce.

0 ert que le domaine quo tranafgre I'emphyt^oae el qu'il a lui-mfime appe!6 " do-
mame dp proprl6t6," d*„» uno autre partio de mh ouvrage-, e»t lo mfime en
emphyt^ose temporairo qu'en «mpLyt«os6 porp6tuolle, ce domaino, dit-il, " ay.nt
aureate la mime dtendue, aoit que l'omphyt6o«e aoit perpAtuolle, aoit qu'elle
joit con.t.tu6e 4 temp..- No. 32, p. 182, ce qu'il avail d6j4 dit aous le m6mo
PiO.f p. 177. ^,

Troplmiif rcconnait encore 4 la page 100, aoua No. 38, que l'emphyt6ole " a
action posaeaaoire centre lea tiers et mfimo contrelo veritable propriAuire J quo

1 Action r6olle lui appartient auaai. Enfln, dana ao.1 trait6 aea « Privil6irea et
hypothAqne^" t. 2, No. 406, il r«connait que remphyt6o«, 4 ten^a, la aeule qui
oxiato aujourd'hui en Pranc^v e.t un droit immobilier aoumia 4 I'bypoth J,c
parco quo d.t-.|, " bien different du aimple bail, cetto emphyt^oae comprend ^J
aiUfMtwn temporatre du dmnaine utile.

" L'empbytfioae, ajouto-il, eat aoumiae auz contribuUona publiquea, et oet im-
p6t proflte pour la jouisaance des droita 6lcctoraux."

Cost auaai ce qu'enaoigno Duvergicr, du huage, t. 3, No. 1 70 : " I'empli^t^ote
eat tenu au paioment dea contributions, mfeme de la contribution foncidre, par
ceq^elle8 8ont une charge iM^ra6fc<fcfe^m>i,r.V<e«nfcdbna7youiV No 171, --
"Par une juste r6ciprocit6, c'oat 4 lui, c« a lui seul, qu'ellea doivent Afro comp-*
Wes pour la formation du cens 6lectoral." Le mftme auteur^vait d6j4 dit, au
No. 159 ; «' remphyt6ote jouit en oualiti d. „riJi.ir. Ti p,,> .i:.,,, ,,

Magrw, A*.

m

i'

'■Mm

i^. f

,. a

'

•

4

>l

1^

V

•

ti\^

y>

•

4

.

»

%:

T..

#,

214

COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, iW

.,.> ■,

^£0^ hypoth^Squer I'hirit^ge, mat les droit* dii bnilleur k I'exiiration du terme fix*,

^ tbt Macpxt. ke. ©u aa moment do la resolution da contrat." No. 160 : 4L'emph3rt6ofe est ro-

"^ . cevable k exercor raction possessoire contre Jes tiers, et m6be centre lepropl-i*-

> . taire, ai colui-ci le trouble dans sa jouissanee." No. 161 : l " II profite d^ rillu-

•^ i .• *'**"» ^*"* ^'•■*' obHg6 d'augraenter la rcdevapce, alors m6ml qUe le bail a d6ter-

inin6 I'dtendue dn fonds." '

' -Mr ^' a d6ji 6t6 remarqu6 que la nouvelle legislation fran^^ise a aboli Temphy-

.;, t6o8e pe|;p6tuellc, mais qu'elle a laissd subsister I'emf hytdose temporaire

^^ir de I'ancieB droit. Ainsi, la jurisprudence, des arrets des tribunaux en France,

et4'opinion desautours qui ont 6crit surle nouveau d)»it, doivint 6tre d'un

, grand poids sur la question deaavoir si I'emphyteose k temps est translative de,

j propriety. , * '' -

.4 } ^*"" r^dition in 8o. de 1829, des " Questions de dt-oit de Merlin," t. 6, an
I Inot " erapbyt6ose," § 6, nous trouvpns la question trait6e de la maniere la plus^
claire ot la plus precise, et r6so!ue, k I'aide des principes tant de I'ancienne que
de la nbuvelle legislation, en faveur de la translation de la propriety en la per-
Sonne de l'emphyt,6ote. Cat article de Merlin s'applique si bien k I'espice
actuelje que je crois devoir en donner une ailalyse, qui, quoique nfecessairement
un peu longue, n'on «era pas moins trouv^e trSs utile.

A la page 215, apr^s avoir fait remarquer que d^ut le droit Bomain, Temphy-
t6oto perpetuel avait I'action reeUe, m6n|© contre son tiaiileur, et qu'il avait
aussi le droit 4l>ypoth6quer, Merlin M : " assuremetft remphytdote n'aurait
pas pu ni rev^ndiquer ni hypoth6quer les fpnds qu'ils poss^dait k cc titre, s'ils
ne lui dissent pas appartenu ; car, dans le droit Romain, comme parmi nous.
Taction en revendication ne pourrait 6tfe exerc6e que par le proprietaire, et
.dans le droit Romain, comme parmi noifs, il n'y avait que le propri6taire d'un
iihmeuble qui p{kt I'bypothequer valablenaent. ^

Merlin rapporte au long le passage de|!iTijit6 en Pf tieJdQ Henrion <fc Pansof
sur la division du domaine; puis, 4 *.8ujet, Hfdits pi 276, 2e col, in Jine.
"C'est done une chose bien constante, que, dans Tancienne jurisprudence, I'em-
phiteote perp6tuel participant. la pr6pri6te du fonds empbyt6otique, en ce
sens qu'il en avait le cUmaine utile, tandis que le bailleur en retenait Id domaine
direct." » . , - , "

A la page 277, il dit que ce domaine direct entre |es mains du bailleur ii em-
phy teose avait " une parfaite similitude avec la seigfteurie directe du balllear 4^ef
ou k cens seigneuijal." (C'est ce que Troplony a dit Iui-ra&nx«.) S

Ensuite Merlin cite jSoularic, dans son commentaire sur les Institutes de Justi-
nien, Hv. 3, tit. 24, §S ; Po<At«-, trait6 de la propriiU, No. 3.; Henrumde
Pan*ey, k Tarticle^" Lods et ventes" des-Ideux premieres editions du R6p. de
jjurispmdence, § 11. ' "t |

AprA* avoir cif6 au long la definition que Pdthier donne du " domaine direct,"
Jl/er^tn ajoute : «' Le domaine direct du bailleur k emphyteose n'etait done pas
non plus autre chose que le domaine ancien, oHginaire et ^mt^ (expressions
de Pothier) duquel I'emphyteose avait detache le domaine utile ; il n'6tait done

^ non -^ua-aut^»-chos»^^q^^*aa «ggj»wwe ito-awprfywHtX tfert-jt-dtr^ te dt
f •» 1. 1 .11 * •- »• • -r ... .

k-

qu'avait le bailleur de se faire reconnoitre joroprietaire aneien, originaire etpri-

^■y

\m

COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1868.

215

ruiti/, et d'exiger certaiM devoirs et redevancet rieognitifa de tan ancienne qualiti,

. oe n'6Uit dono pas dans le bailleur que r^sidait oe que Pothier appelle an mdino

endroit le domaine depropriiti, et quMl dit lui-mdme consiater dans le dtmtaine

(jrut rmferme tout ce qu\ly a d'utile datu tin heritage, comme d'en perBbxrir let

ffuitSy (Ten ditposer d ton gri.

Apr6s arofr trait6 ainsi la question relativement k I'omphytiote & perp^tuite,
Merlin^ k la page 277, pose la question suivante :

" L'ancienne jurisprudence pla^ait-elle, k cet 6gard, remphyt^ote tcmporaire
sur la m6me ligne que I'emphyt^ote perp^tuel f

II r^pond "oui, car ce que d^cidait pour celui-ci les lois 1 et 2, D, Si ager
vectigalia vel emphyteuticariiu petatur, la loi S du mime titre I'^tendait expres-
ftdment k 6elui-l&, idem est (disaitejle) etsi ad tempm conduetutn sit nee tempus
hcationis finitum sit. L'emphyt^ote temporaire avait done, tout le temps que
durait son bail, la mftme action r^elle, le mftme droit foncier que I'e^plb^l^ote
perp6tuel, et dka Ik, il est daif qu'il n'existait^ quant k la quality de propri6f.
taire, de possesseur animo domini, aucune diiKrence entre I'empliytiote perp^f
tuel et l'emphyt6ote tcmporaire."

P. 278.-:^ invoque la d^flniUon donnie de Temphyt^ose par Julien d^ns son
commentaire sur les "Statuts de Provence," 1. 1, p. 61. Puie il rappelle le fait
que les biens tenus k emphyt^oee 6taient sujets an retrait lignager, et k ce snjet,
il cite ce qu'en dit Pothiery trait6 des'retraits, No. 28. II rapporte I'opinion do
Ravi qui avait soutenn que I'emphytioso n'6tait qu'un bail k ferme on k loyer,
ce qu'il traite de Paradoxe comme il le prouve bient&t Alors Merlin ajotfte :
"Tenons done pour bien constant qu^ dans I'ancienne jnrispmdence^ I'empby-
t6ote 6tait rielkmentprcprUtaire; qu'il I'Atait k toujours, (sauf les cas de com'
mise r£gI68 par les lois Romaines, p*ar les usages locaux, ou par les conventions
des parties) lorsque son titre 6tait perp6tuel, et qu'il I'itait k temps, lorsque son
titre 6tait temporaire. r'

" Mais remarquons en ra^me temps que, dans I'un et I'autre cas, il n'avait que ,
le domaine utile, et que taut que durait remphyt^dse, le baiUeur conservldt )e
domaine^irect des fonds conc^d^s & ce titre." '''-

Merlin passe ensnite k la legislation intermfidiaire de la France, d'abord a'la

loi du 18, 29 d6c«mbre 1790, concemant le raohat des rentes foncieres, p. 279.

Le premier article de cette loi declare rachetables " toutes les rentes foncidres

perpfituelles, soit en nature, soit en argent, de quelqu'esp^ce qli'elles soient et

quelque soit leur origine."

, Cette loi comprenait rem{>byt6o8e perpi^uelle, elle pb'rtait que le posBMseur
qui voudra raobeter la rente fonciSre ou empbyt6otique,seratenu, outre le capi-
tal de la rf nte, de racheter lea droits casuels dtts avx mutations ; " Or," dit Mer-
lin^ «' permettre k PemphytAote perp6tuel de racheter la rente fixe et les droits
oasnels qui forment le prix de sa concession, lui permettre d'^teindre par ce
-moyen, tons les droits r^aerv^s an bailleur par I'emphyt^e, c'est assurfiment
reconnaltre de la mani^re la plus positive, comme je I'ai etabli dans des conclu-
aiona du 25^jum.4^tV-rap&ort6e» datm-le-r6p. de jurisprudence, aux moifl
•• rente seigneuriale," § 2, Nol 8, his, que c'est dans les mains de lWphyt6ote
que ftoide g^dbmatne depropHiti, la vhitabh qnaliti deprcpriitaire.

Gmild
n.
ThoMajror,

*o.

m

.v

■1 •

216

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, 1868.

The

e^itendro qu .1 n est pas dans sun intention d'6tendre cette facult6 jusqu'i lui
mais ce qu. prouve qu'elle ne veut pas pour cela le priver do la LSI '
pri6taire 4 temps .^fa'il avait dans I'ancieL jurisp „de ce cl la "tt&lr:
estcon,ue la sec6«dc disposition d»«..eUl: ^::^nt^^
do..r6er aucone rederance fonciere non remboursable sans prmU d^h2

dur6e, ot pourront 6trc faits i I'avenir pour 99 ans ou au-dessoX"
On vo.t qu ici la loi place l'emphyt6ose temporaire sur la m Jd %ne que le
ba ^ rente non-perpituel Or. on ne s'est jamais avis6 d'aasimilef e ba^l

en e non perp6tu,U un simple cantrat de louage ; jamais on no sL avisJde
iCln T . ""*" »- W6tuel. I'effet de transferer l.propi74 j*

exp,ration du temps pour lequel il 6tait consenti. Si done on ne peut pasXu
terquen mamtenantle bail 4 rente non perp^tuel, la loi no lui ait conwrv6
leffetdetra^f6rerle^«»a.«eefc^r;^,^ pour, tout le temps de saduron
u, peut pas douter non plus qu'en maintenant I'empbyt^ose temporaire elll ne
lui ait conscrv6 le m6me effet." ' , i'"™re, eiie ne

JIfcrZminyoqueensuite, pourmieux expliquer la^ensee de la loi de 1790 le
premier article de la loi du 15 Sept., 16 Oct. 1791 i V

Ml sera libre solt au preneur, possesseur actueldu fonds d tUh dehaUem-
phytic Jue,ou d Te,Ue non perpetuel, soit a^baille^r propri^tai,^ de la rente, et
ayantdroUdl^pr^Mrivermcd. racheter 14 droits ci^levant seignouri-
aux. fixes ou casuela, dont le dit fonds se trouve cha^6. et dont les dits-baiUeur
et preneur sont respectivement. tenus. en se conforniant,>,„. cA«c„„ ^^ .„
regies ci-apr^s." / /. • ■,

/' Ainsi." observe Merli/^^ pendant la dur6e du|,ail emphytfiotique nonL-
p6tue . le bailleur «'est,/n sa quality do propri^ire de la.rente, qu'un ay^4
droit A la propnete reversible du fonds, et des l|. il faut bien que pendant W
dur6e d^Uil, la propnafi-actuelle rfiside dans lesinain? dy preneur " "

ir«.?m cite ensuite un rapport deTronchet sur le projet de cette loi, rapport
fait pour servir d'.nstructions, et dans lequel oii ^marque le passage suiSv ^

?•' ?^^- ., " f" r"«"' (^«"« '« »>«" ^ «»t« nonlperp6tuel) acqniert une W
prifti: il est teputii proprietaire pour toute la du^e du bail; et comme t5 il
est tenu des charges r^elles et annoelles; mais il n'i^Squ»„„e p ^^j^ resoluble."
, Ce rapport ct la loi qu'il a amen6e," dit MerliA, "sont une preuve legisla-

tive, et par consiquent irr6fragable, du parfait alcord qu'il y « relativ^ent
aux droito de l'emphyt6ote temporaire entre les malimes de I'ancienne jurispru- ^
dence, et I'es^rit de Particle premier de la loi des lA 29 decembre 1790."

P. 290, ici Merlin 6nonce et pose 1q vrai princi|e qui sort de fondement k
toute la doctrine Bur cette matiSre. |

" La ficult6 d'alifiner et d'acquerir k temps,]' dit-i| " n'est pas moins de dr6it
naturel qae la facult6 d'ali^ner et d'acqu6rir i perp6|iit6.'' " ^

^292, II cite I'arr6t de la cgur d^^assation du 2e|Juin 18^2, cit6 plus haut

^iaaiCffltar,^dtt-fciiay<,^«>us-la N<>» 165. (h) '

-? ■ ^ _: I

0 Dans cet arrfit, il s'agissait d'un bail emphyt^otiqne, |u 2 aoikt, 1760.

t

I-

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH,' 1869.

217-

Voiei quelques una des co»Mie«m»te de cet arrftt.

" Attendu que sea effots (rempbyt^ose) sont dediviserla {tropri^tS dadomaineThe
donn6 k emphytiose, en deux parties, I'une form6e dn domaine direct, dont Fa
rente qne se retient le bailleur est repr^ntative, I'autre appeld domaine utile,
qui se compose de la jouissance des fruits qu'il produit.

** Que le |>fenour poss^de le domaine utile qui lui est tlranstnis par Tefifet de ce
part^e, comme proprietaire, ^uv&nt, pendant la dur^ejSkthail, en disposer par
vente, donation, ^change ou autrement, aveo la charge 4»utefoi8, des droits da
bailleur, poQvant, pendant le mSme tempt, exercer I'actidn in rem pour se &ire
maintenir centre tous cenx qui I'y troublent et centre le tnulleur lui-mdme."

^ Que ces/dispontions des lois Romaines ont b\A adpises en France, tant eo
pays de droit 6critqu'en pays coutumier ; et que le codejcivil qui n*A pas trait4
du bail emphyt£otiqu6,neles a ni cbang^^s ni modifiSes.'

Troplong lui-m^me, aux notes de la page V80 du tone ler de son trait6 du
louage, remarque deux autres arrets de la conr de cassatisn, qui ont jug6 dans
le m6me sens et consacr6 las m'^mes principes,:ils sont do ler avril 1840. ,

Dalloz, Juris-gen. du Royaunie" ann^e 1831, rapport s un arrSt du 10 mai de
la.m6nic ann6e, rendu par la cour rdyale de Paris, qui a ju^ la m^me chose. (1)
2tne. Partie, p, 121 : " Consid^rant qii'avant la promulgation du cqde civil
1$ jurisprudence de toutes los coprs arait admis, comme principe constant, que
la concession k titre d'emphytiose k longues anndes, coiif6rait an prenenr one
/>n)prufte' tmmo5t7i^e, susceptible d'hypoth^qne. .. .. -■

^" L'emphytdose qui ne pent 6tre assimil^e^ un contrat de louage, et qai
conrere tout k la fois une jouissance usufruitiSre^ k longues annies, et une copro-
■pi;j6t6 entre le bailleur et le preneiir ; que la propriit6 des biens donnas k em-
phytSose eat divitie en deux partita, dont Fune est transmise au preneur, avec
faculty, pendant la dur6e de son droit, d'en disposer par vente, donation ei affec-
tation hypoth^c^ire, k la charge des droits du bailleur."

M. de Vatimemil, qui snivant 7Vop2o;i^, Atait " jadis I'une des lumiSres de
la cour de cassation." (2), avait fait pour les appelants, dans Pespece qui vient
d'etre rapport^e, un m^moire dont Dalloz publiO'Un extraiu en t6te de Parrot de
1831, etauquel Tropfon^ faisait allusion dans son 61oge de Mr Vatimemil, aprdi
avoir lai-m£me oit6 cet arrit de 1831, pour proaver que INimphybfiote pent
pethijuer son droit « M. Vatimemil, avait &it dans cette cai ise," disait Trop,
" un mdmoire qui mettait cette v6rit6 dans tout son jour.'.'

Or quels ^taiient les principes qui servaient de b&se aux raisonnements de
M. Vatimemil f Les voici: "Le droit que le contrat d'enjphytfiose transf^rait
au prenenr, 6tait r6el et immobilier. '

"La 16gi8lation interm^diaire a aboli remphytAose perbfituelle, mais elle a

maintenii l'emph;^t6o8e temporaire, et conservA tous lespriMcipet qui la rigit-

taimt.. . «* Si je puis aligner k perp6tuit6, je dois ponvoir le feire pour un temps.

« L'emphytfeote est soumis aux contributions publiqui... II profite de

cet imp6t pour Texeroice des droits Alectosaux."

Gould
Uaiyor, Ac.

aprdjl
9hn^,

(1) II s'agissait d'un bail emph7t^tique4a 22 avrU 1828.

(2) lyoplong, "priviligetethypothiques, t: 2, p. 33, aux notes.

-Ss-

218

COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1868.

The

0^ Fiilix et Iteimon, dans leur trait6 dos " rentes fonddres," p.p. 24 et 25,

Mwr. *c reconnaiflsent qu'avant la loi de 1790, « I'emphytfcote k temps avait, conform*'

mcnt au droit Romain, acquis la copropriiU du fqnds pour le temps de la dut^e

, ducontrat;'* Mais ils soutiennent que, sous la Ifigislation interpaAdiaire de la

. Prance, cette propri6t6 a retoarn* an propri6tairo originaire." Cependant, aux

notes, ils remarqnent que la cour de cassation avait jng6 le contrairp par I'arrfet

d6j4 cit6,du 26 juinlS!^.

^ Toutes ces autorit^s font.voir qu6, si sous la nouyelle legislation de la France,

il s'est 61ev6 dcs doutes dans I'Myprit de queTques 6crivains, sur lea effets de I'em-

phytAose temporaire relativement ija translation de la propri6t6, il ne pouvait

pai y en avoir dans I'ancien droit od Temphyt^ose k temps 6tait un droit r6el,

-. immobilier, translatif de propri6t6, en un mot une vraie copropri6t6. Ausai

Lmd, dans ses ♦• Institutes contumidres,". 1. 1, iiv. 2, tit. § 2, p. 262,*dit-il : « Im-

1 meables sont. . . Baux d'h*ritages k bail- emphyt^ose," Nmv. Denisdrt, t 7, ftu

fcot emphyteoae," p. 639 ; *• Le fond donn6 k bail empbyt6otique est susceptible

de la qualit6^de |»iqp»ic, lorsqu'il a fait souche dans la fanlille du preneur ; il est

partag^'comme propre dans les successions, et m est vendu k des dtrangers, il

. ^t soumis au retrait lignager." / ,

Si les droits de L'emphyt6ote n'6t^ient pas immeubles, s'ilsne lni^onf6raient
« pall la propri6t6 de la chose baill6e, pourraient-ils avoir la quality de propre
tielei^tresujet auretraitlignager? L'artide 449 de la coutumede Paris qiii
declare en termes exprds que " Baiiz k 99 ans, ou longnes ann6es, sont sujets k
retrait,"m€rparait6tred6cisitjt doit iter a I'opinion ci-dessus cit6e de Du-'
moulin Bur laquelle Trophn^jltAt appuy6 en partie, la force qu'elle pouvait
avoir eip'apparence lorsque 'DutokwZw 6crivait II 6crivait vers 1640, sous
" Pancienne coutume de Paris qui nVait pas de disposition semblable i cet
article"^ 149. C'est & la r^fbramtion de la coutume en 1680 que cet article a 6te
ajottt*. ^ - - *^ /

En soumettant au retrait le bail emphytdotique temjfjoraire, la-nouvelle cou-
tume a reconnu sa qnalit6 immdbilidre, elle a reconnu qu'il 6tait translatif du

> domaine utile, comme I'etait le bail k .fief, k cens ou Jr-r^te fondAre, c'est la
consfiquenc^de cet article 149. Et I'on doit croire que, 8^ cette di^ition
expresse^eftfcfait partie de I'ancienne coutume .de Paris, IJwiiouZwjhJ^ait'pas
pu faire autrement que d'admettre cette consequence, et d'attribuer k Temphy-

>- t^ose temporaire I'eflFet d'op6rer, en fareur du preneur, la translation du dbmaine
ufo'fe, comme il I'avait attribud k Temphyteose perpetuelle, et alors Trophng^
n'ayant plus son appui, n'aurait peut-6tre pas cherchfe'i affaiblir, comme il Pa
fait dans son trait6 du Tmmge, la premiere opinion qu'il avait 6mise dans son
ttmib'Ae&priviUgea et hypothique* en faveur de la translation du domaine utile
comme effet de l'emphyt6ose temporaire. " ■

Au reste, I'artkile 149 de la nouvelie coutume n'a fait que consacrfer un prin-
cipe qui avait plis racine en France k la suite du droit Romain, k savoir.la trans-
lation eH'ali6nation d'une propri6l6 immobilifire dans le contrat <l'emphyt6o8e
temporaire. V i- *• \ ' "

Le^oaractereempbyteotique des baux quiexcAdfint nftil^«nnefia.etaai comme '■'"

(

telB sont dans I'anden droit fran5a)8, translatifedu domaine utile, est virtudle-

t Ji tp~y

V

. )•

<l

COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1868.

219

ment recoimu par notre ordonnance des bureaux d'cnr^gmtrement, dans cette
disposition qui porto que "lea dispositions de cette ordonnance, et aucun^AL
ohose y contenue, ne s'dtendront point k des baux pour nne p6riode moindre
' que neuf ann^os.*' . , .

L'ordonnance frappe done les baux qui excddont neuf ann^es, et si elle les 1
firappe.ainsi, c'est parcequ'eile reconnait qu'ils out le.caractSre, non d'un simple
bail A loyer, mais bien ceini d'un bail emoliytiotique qui emporte rali6nation»
etoelasans distinguer entre remphyt*^ perpAtoelle et Temphytfiose tempo*
raire. . .

La propri6t6 ainsi acquise par I'appelant, 6tant situ^e dans les limites de la
eiti de Montreal, doit contribuer^ aux charges munioipales, k moins qu'elle n'en
ait 4t6 exempt6e par quelque loi sp6ciale ; c'est ce que*pr6teDd/appeiant, et il
5 iiivoque k I'appui de cette pr6tention, le statut de 1847, chap. 1/i, mais toujdurs '
en partant du principe erron6 que les baux en vertu desq4els il jouit des
• terrains, n« sont qiie de simples baux k loyer. Cette erreur /kyant 6t6 d^mon-
tr6e, la pretention d'une exemption acquise en vertu du siatut tombe d'elle- *
mftmev Cependant je n'ai pas d'objection de Texaminer un/peu en d6tail, 6t4nt *
bien facile d« faire voir, que I'appelant dans la position Ou il se trouve, n'est '* ',
nuUement fond6 dans sa pretention. / . ^■

Avant la promulgatioh du statut Se 184V,le8 propri6t68 jv^partenant 4 SaMajeste
dans le Bas-CanadM, 6taient impoSables sous I'autorite di la loi des chemins, 36,
Gcio. S.Sihap. 9. Mais celles qu'elle pos86dait dans le Haut-Canada, ne I'dtaient
pas. L'abolition de cette difference entre |es deux legislationa fut I'objet du
statut de 1847. Le preambule en expliqne le motif /et" le but : " Attenda que
par ks lois de cette partiedela pnovince, ci'devant \i province du Hau^Canada,
toutes les proprietes poss^dees par la couronne, ou en son nom {in trust) sont
exemptees de taxes et do cotisations loicsales, et quTil est expedient que les dites
proprietes Boient aussi pareillement exemptees dans cette partie de la province, .'
ci-devant le Bas-Canada." La partie de I'acte de la 86e Geo. 3, qui cr6ait I'im -
-position ,esl d'aljord abrogee ; puis il est dit : k l/av^nir toutes telles dites propri-
etes comme susdit, dans quelque partie de la proAnnoe qu'elles soient situees, serpnt
exemptees de toutes taxes et impositions locales! etc, etc." ' .

L'exemption.pour le Haut-Canada, se trouvd lans un statut de 1819, chap. 7,
'dont la deuxieme section, aprSs avoir donne I'eiiumeration des proprietes impo-
Sables, contient le^wwwo suivant : "Nothing herein .contained shall extend, or
}» construed to extend, to any property, goods or effects, matters or things,
herein mentioned or enumerated, which ehM b jlong to or be in the actual pos-
session or occupation of his Majesty, his heirs or sufsicessors,- except the crown
tad clergy reserves actually leated to individuals, which shall be liable to the
snne rates^ind assessments as other lands herein Ijwfore mentioned," et par un '
statut subsequent, celui de 1825, chap. 7, qui p^fmet de faire vendre les terrains
imposables, faute de paiement des cotisations, il est dit, sec. 16, "Nothing in
this act contained shall extend to authorize the sale of any greater or other inr-'
terest in the reserved lands of the crown or clergy, held in leate, for payment^
qf arrcan of aase&sment«ji than is possessed by inch lessee or his ost^nee."

GonU
Magror, Ac.

!■%.,

»T)ropriete8iennc8 1 bail-(feD«Brf)Tir la Oouroime dons lerHStit-Canaclir

:W- ■ \

V;:.^.-. J

' '- *■■*' '-. • ,' .'

r " *"■■ '■J

' /

y^

■ '-■' 7 '

■ * 1

COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1888.

Gould

Tl.

The Mayor,

-f
..#.

^ 6taient ot .spnt encore imposablos, sans distinction du plug ou moinM ,1*, t.^^
H- que doit durer 1. bail J). Co genre de propri6t6 pLr.u" a„ctrt JJ

^ LT TrV '" 'V-*-P^- «•« hon4o«r»do la reprCta ion.^
. dans e conse.l do vdlo. so dans la I^gfslaturo, la propri6t6 en question comrra
.pour former saquabflcatiU fonciire, s'il v^ut oxercer ia franchise ^leoUvt;

^r!nr!r' ' "'""r* *"'"" P'"' ^rmer sa quaHtfi d'^lecteur co«„e '

propr 6taire,et non pas ^mme locataire. II „e pourrait pas Mre admis A voter

ccncettedernidre quality krtii8«ndecottepropri6t6. , - "'r****^'

A tout 6vdneinont, on ne saurait disconvonir qu'il a du nioinsacquis la jo-iis-

sance .t r«.«/r«»^ des terrains en question, po.r ^ j,ropre «%e et iJZ

A ce ^ge epcore ,1 a seul le droit de voter k r6Iection d'un d6put6 4 IWmbire

16g.8latf^ (acte de 1849, chap. 27, s. 38). ■ '»«»«"W6e

Enfiu cM^il poss^de, il lo possWe pour lui-mfime, pour son profit et non
^cdu, de la couronne ^^n trust). Ainsi il n'y a pas lieu & I'exemption des charges
inumcfpa es ; cette exemption, s'il y avait une ^xe ^ur le reven«,'ne pourfait "

■ Su ^ " ^ T "" '* ''"'" "" '^"*« emphyt^otique que I. couronne a
st,nt,l6, comme reprisentant le domaine direcfou de superiority qU'elle a seui;
mentretenu. . » ,i =«uiw

Sur lea antres questions moins important, q«i ont 6t6 plaidfies k Taudience '

5«.,^ ^W. for Appellant. ' ^ '""""''^ '' ^^"^* *"'*'" T«""^'
Jb«epA Popin, for Respondents.
!;8.B.ftP.W.T.]

IN APPEAL '^'

PEOM THB StPBBIOB Coray. DIBTWOT OV MOHTBIAI.

MONTRBAi 8r«l MAT. 1589.

^

Coram Sib K H. Lakontaikh., Bart, C. L ArLwrK. J.Dcval, J, Mkbedith, J.

MOL80N B:

^:;f

BUaftOUOKS,

■ ;■

"'"*i^2fa"^« to *4f "^' *"* °"^'*'" '"' »"« '"^»«ff". "»e»d hi, «turn to • writ of «««,

*!», (PUtintifft in the Court below.J
' „ Appellants.

h (IHf«ndantin the Court betov.J

Respondent

This action was commenced by process
and wa. founded upon a notarial lease. ^ .„« ^^ms oi tne wn,^ tUe^rifl
was commanded to seizain the hands of tJe defendant, all the goods, fm^ure,
chattels and «»ffp<»ta »t..-/.T. u^a i. 1 .^ . . B ""°> '"r"'»ure,

of same gagerie par ^^roifde suite,]
"ty the terms of the writ, thoHsfeeriff

-ghk^ had been roinovid-wMwHh^^hBt^eightTlaj^-f^c

.'0^1^'.

^0^»y OP QUEENS BENCH, 1869.

221

premi-oa le-ed, to certain oth^T;;;:;,., which a. .eco.dI,de.cribed1;:;i:

appear by the return fh-f J j onentt» return, Inasmuch «» it did not

ground that the Sheriff ««♦ k • '°*'*"^° *»" '«8«c*«d upon the

more. ■"•■■■■•l.i.g t|i>t tha proper ooorM ,„ f„, u^« pl„„tiir, ,„

Th6plaintifi8,onthe24thofM»roh IftjsB m-j« ' .•

mmt bis reluni, so fa to shew in what premises the aeiinre wai' m^J. mi.
"Ofon w„ dismi«»d b, Mn, J«ice Monddel, on^ Mih™ iS iS^

««i«»».» Ti. ^^ *"^ pennisBion to do «o buffht to have b(>fln

granted. Tfre reason was manifest: for instance. th« nlTln^T • u.T

.J««.^jte,..tto«.eSheH.orh,^^tcotr,S:S^^^
The judgment of the oourtRs recorded as foUows:-

d an. omssion on d'nn. onenr eo»uni«, p„ inadTerteno. par I. dSSt™

MoiMn
Bumughi,

-■'*
■>

^1'

■a

m

huJt^iHfejctte-li^ dit&^nroUdn,' il ylTmaT

. V ■. ,

\'

.(Itf.

\ .

\

\ 222

.• .\

.)

COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1859.

/ Ifolwn

VI.

,^ i^K*' J'»fl™o le siudit jugement, aveo ddpena oontre rintini6 adr le prdaent' app«|
Bumugbi. e\ oerto Cour proc6dant k rendre le jugement que la dite Cour Sup*rieuro aurait >.
da.randre, accorde la dite motion, et par suite, met au n6ant lo Mcond jugement
_^don)| il y a 6galcmcnt appel, savoir le jugement de la dite'Gour Siup^rieare d«
▼ingtr-noufmui mil huit cent oihquante buit qui rejette la motion faite par let
.\ J>ema»deur8 le dix-sept du m6me mois, pour faire reviser le auadit jugement du

/ \ V trente avril mil huit cent oinquanto huit, laquclle dite dernidre motion aera, tA

* le present jugement donnant aux demandeurs lo profit de la motion de vingt
quatro mars mil huit cent oinquanto huit, rugard^e comme non-avenue, et con-
damne Tintiind aux d^pens sur les ditea deox motions en la dito Cour 8up6rieure •
et il est ordonn6 que le dossier soit romis k la dite Cour Supdrieure ai^geant i*
Montreal.

. Dorman for appollanta. Judgment reversed.
Crosg db Bancroft for Respondent.
r- (8.W.D.) ' ■■ --, » ■■ -.— .' - ----•

IN APPEAL

FioH THi BurmtoB Oonai^ Distbiot of MostaaAL.

MONTBBAL, 4th MAT, 186».

.^

/\,

CoroTO Sin L. H. Lafontaihb, Bart. Ch. J, Aylwin, J., Dovai.,J., MB|iBorrfl,'J.

ABOHAHBBAULT, fPlailktiffen garantU in the Court htUnoJ

AppeUant.

\

AKD

Wmr,(I>rf!indmUmtgannUi»i*lh«C(mHhaMB.)

'. " . Beipondent.

IP«B«MPTION 808PBNDID.

EMr-fOmt a Judgment diaeharsiiig an inioription tat hMring on the merits in an action m earmtUt,
on the ground thaf the Inioription waa "prematura," (the original action, "not having ben
heard and adiudged") has the efbot of mupending luoh aoUon «a garanti* and of preventfaig
phtn^tUm fFtnttanei, ^ ,

'"■ -^ »

This was an Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Courts rendered at
Mohtreal on the 23rd of September 1856/ declaring the instatue in the case
pending in the Court below pMe for want of proceedings dnring 3 years.

The..action in the Court below waa one en garantie, instituted by the App^*
lant against the Respondent and several- other parties. The Defendants pleaded
to the action, denying the Plaintiff's right to sue them en parantie, and the case
was urged on to final hearing by the Defendants. At the argument the
Cpnrt expressed a doubt as to the power of tlie parties to press for judgment so
long as the original action was undecided and subsequently discharged thediK-
biri, rendering the following judgment on the 16th of December 1862 r— "The
Court,"" considering that the inscriptioiii»of the said cause is premature, ina»-
much as Judgment cannot be rendered on the merits of Plaintiff's demand m
•' until the cansia in hia deolaratioa, " . _. . _

-1:1

boURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1869.

Fr«ppier, in hit taid^l^tion mentioned, i» pefendant, hath been hewd and A«>ta«b«ii

Sjllll/tMAil ^A*U ^2*^K JUjL^- aL - ^_f 1 , « •_. ■<••> . ... «■.

adjudged, doth diaoh|fj|[e the said oAuae ttoih d4lib4r4^"

No proceeding bei«if had in the caoM. during^guoceedlng 3 yean, the
Reepondent moved ai£« ottUined the judgment .m pirmptuk iPinttanct which
gave Hm to the preM^ app^.

The Court of A^^ conaide^ th^ in$Une« auspended by the judg-
ment of the 16th of lumber 1862, and revened the judgment of 5-
rmptum, in th^>. following words :-"U Cour«"» consid6rant que tent
que le jugement i^t«r]ooiitoire du qninie dftcembre mil huit cent dnquante
deux restoit on pleinajr^ueur, Hnstance sur Paction en garantie «tait iiuspenduo
par oidre de U Co!ir,^et non par le fait de I'Appelant qui avait mis ba cause en
«at d dtre jug6 j que pendant cette suspension, jl ne poufait y avoir Hou k la
p*remption d'instence; considArant, par consequent, qu'en accordant le profit
de la motion fiuto par lo dit Thomas J. Q. Busby. I'fin de. DWendeurs, 4 I'effet
de faire declarer p4rie I'instance sur Taction en garantie, et dibb^ter le Deman-
denr de sa dite acUon, et en declarant en effet p^U la dite instance ct en d«-
boutant le dit De&andear de sa dite action, le jngement dont est appel a mal
m infirae le susdit jugement. savoir le jugement rendu le.vintftrtrois sep-
tembre mil huit cent cinquante-sir, par la Cour Snp*rieure si^geant 4 Montr6aL
avec dipens sur le present appel contre le dit Thomas J. G. Busby ;et cett»
Cour proo6dant k rendre le jugement que la dite Oour Snp6rieure aurait dft
rendre rejette la susdite moUoii avee dipens, et ordonne que fe dossier «oit
remis 4 la aite Cour Sup6rioure siAgeant 4 MontrAil."

• Judgment oftheCourt,below reversed.

Jjoranjfer, PominvUle A Lorangtr^ for Appellant "

if. i/mion, for Respondent
<8.B.) .

bAt.

IN APPBAL

raoM «Ba ScnaioB Couxr. DimucT of Movtbiak.
'^ 1I0NTKBAL,4ntMAT,iaB«. *

— A

ti

Coram Sib L. H. LaFowtaiih, Bart. Ch. J., Atlwih, J., Dotal, J., Mibidiih, J.

Nasi.
LBVBBaON n AK.. rPfoteiVIr to M« Owrf Mow.;

Aim

BOSTON, (rJ«*M0MiMi»M«OMir< Mow.; '

Bflipondeut.

"••Irh '''*'* •"**' **' *•" '^"' •*' ■^''^ '***^ *® ^ wrtflwd IvsffafWwi, under a Bole fer dm.
«r«**<.^ r^' J^ l!!i*!*^.^ ^ the wrt*I .diiiiMkm of the Plaintiff.... to noh ^ue
nude .t the time ttfthaieiiAn of the goodA \

S. T^. tender to the .ttorneyt ad IMm orthePfarintiff, who reride. be}r«nd thetWhtrftheFM.
*liio* of the Trine » inrored Md of the oort. on the Bale, miide in • CMe irtKie the^B^b^
«iraiiMdmdMAwierimd:oalincoiiM«ueiioekbatmMe beJiTO MCTioeof Aroelo^

\

■ V.

- /

WW-

.824

OOUUT OF QUKEN'8 BKjXCU, 18^9.

LflTffwn
B<Mton.

--fWc'

th* lUipomlant to th« amU of AppMl. wIimw thn Judffmmtt in AppMl daw not twvd » lv|tr
wnouiit than that tniulorad.
3. That oil • Bulo luch m th* one In qiiMtinn, whnre thn Plaintiff msldM bnyoiid thx Hmlla of Uia
Provlnon. Ihtt Court will ontor ttia gartlitn to b« ntltaTiHl ttam tha contrainU. uu (IciNwIllaii the
MtaltlUhiNl valuo of th« gooilt in the luuuU of tha HnithoiiotMry.

ThU was an Appeal from the judginont of the Superior Court r«porte<I at
p. 07 of the 3rd vol. of the Jurist. Before the Mrvioe of the writ of Appeal,
the Roip6ndent tendered to th« Attomeya ad littm \xx the Court below of the
AppellanU the aum of £bO alluded to in the Report referred to, together with
£5 fodr »lie cost* of the Rule, declaring his willingness to pay any further
amonnt at which the costs might be taxed, and in the Respondent's answers to
the reasons of Appeal, he specially sot up these facts, and declared that he
desisted from the judgment of the Court below, but prayed for costs in the
Court of Appeals against the Appellants.

The proof oT the value of the goods being £flO was established by the verbal
admission made by one of the Plaintiff at the time of the seisure of the goods*
and it was contended by the Appellontt^hat ittch an admission could not under
our law bo proved by parol evidence, and that under the "oircurastancoa under
which it was made, \\( could not amount to proof of the fact which it was
incumbent on the Respondent to establis)), and consequently that the Appel-
lants were entitled to have the Rule declared absolute, purely and sioiply.'
The following is the Judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals :
" La Cour*** 1. Consid^rant que lea parties ^ cet appul ont, en conformity du
jngement rendu par cette Oonr le troisidme jour du roois de Beptepibre dernier
proc6d6 k la pr^uve d6 la valeur des effets saisis ot non ropr^sent^s jpar I'lntimd
dont il s'agit, que cette valour a it6 prouv6e ne pas exo6der la tonime de cin-
quante louis, cours actuci, ainsi que lo sh^rif I'avait all6gu6 dans aes r6|)on8e8
pttr 6crit .4 la demande de contrainte par corps form6e centre lui ; qu'il n'y a
pas eu de mauvaiso fdi d°e la part da di{ Sh6rif, que, dans les circonstances, il a
fait la seule preuve qu'il fut en son pouvoir de faire, preuve qui auxait pu fitra
controdite ou attaqu6e paries Demandeurs qui, n^anmoins se sont volontaire-
ment abstenus de le faire.

2. Considirant que la demande de la oonti^nte par corps proc6dait valable-
nqient contre le dit Sharif; qu'elle aurait dft 6tre prononc6e contre lui, avec
I'alterpative de sVn lib6rer en pay ant a'ux Demandeurs la dite valeur des susdita
effets^nsi proav6e, que par conAqnont, dans le jugement qui fait le sujet dp
present appel, il y a mal jng6 en ce que la demande de la contrainte par corps
est rejet^e, infinne lesusdit jugement, sayoir le jugenient rendu le vingt-huitid*
me jour d'Octobre dernier, par la Cour Snpirieure si^geant k Montreal, et cette^
Cour proc6dapt k rmdre ;le jugement que la dite Cour Sup6rieare aurait/du
rendre, declare boune et valable la demande de la contrainte par corps form6e
centre le dit Sharif mia en cause, et en consequence ordonne'que le dit John
Boston soit contratnt par corps, et emprisonnfi dans la prison cotnmun du district
de Montreal k moina que sous hbit jours du prononc6 du present jugement, il
ne d^^ibse entre les lAains des^greffiers de la dite Cour Supirieure vd, I'absenoe
des Demandeurs do ce pays la sus«dite somme de oinquante louis cours «otael
pour leur tenir lieu du priz et Valeur des dits effeta saisis et non repr6sellt^

& « »

^i'l

|"'^9"^'^f^

CQ^URT OFQUBBN'8 BBNCn, 1859. ^5

B<M«M.

'I

SUPERIOR COURT. >
HOariBBAL, sun M ABOH. itat. ' -^^
CofmmSmTUJ. ...

.^'--^' Vo.741.

own« of (h. other v«o, i. „1„Z In Ci^ .^T^'ll'l'''!'* ""•»"'«' C«iU. »»»»««.
Mgll«6noo" on th«p.rt of the oww of the^t^ ^"^ "''"«" »'" "V wUft,| wt or

■■1e^

-- The Defondanta pleaded that the <iolliMon WMlfctfr«Mul!f

woald not have oecurred h«i the ban» Tl^y^T^^"^. «oo.dent «,d

Caaal it ^ bound to occupy, J^^i^^^^Z^;!. '''' f « ^ ^«
ThefoUowing waathe Judgment of the Co^^ T^* '^''^*^'^"''•
PUintiff hath Med to establK; mft^L SCtbra^n'r"* ■^- "^^ '^^
contained, «.d that the «ud HetenC^e^ZVl Tt ^''^^^'^

collision refer^d to in the declanttiTJjr^^;^^^^^

from which ooUiaion, the pNNot aotfenThZ^kT JTJ!^ ^ ^-fi^lBWiig

m-i in a position in the lEe C«d b trS i. ^*^*^'^ ^^"^
in yiolatioa of the nUcB ^Z^^Z^t^' 'f' T '^^^^^.'^d
^ -aid Lachine Oaaal, and ^.^TeS oT'r^lSL "t^"'^^ °'
. Strong wind f«,m the weat which fdrorf Z^^f &!Zf Tl ""^^^^^S
ride of the Canal where the aaid Bar^« ZT "I!S f ?"*" ^^""^ «>« "
ira. the effect of accident and^d JX^f^m ^^A? -**^* *^" ~^«°
the cr^w in cha^ of the said -t^c^rhel^L^ir^r^U,^^^

^tion of the said PkinUff with oosta." ' !Z ^ Uurt doth dimia, the

J: Jf. 2)c»;ar««in«, for Plaintiff. ,\ ^ 1^.

..ff^^^^AcHforDefendantB.' ' ' Aj^on diaibiMod.

4 '

T

'11

r:4

^

I'm

i

/

I9«

8UPKRI0R COURT, 18A0.

MONTMAU tlvr. MABCH, UM

/
Coram liMTtuLOT, J.

No. aa4. '

J)tlittehio vt. Jimpk,

ACTION IM OARAMTIB IIMMJi.

HaM.— t. Thai m Mtlon m f«r«i»«« ttaif)!* wUI Ita by • Proprtotor for Amuium oaumd to Ut

TMumt, by • thini party by rMMon of th« dmnollUun of % wUloi/t* wall,
t. And thia althouRh thn FlalntllT <a ganttUH may hlaaair ba liabla tor a part of ih« danumoa rasa-

varabla by mid third party-
I. Tt^ to malntatn tb« ri«bt of aolloii In tuoh oaaa la to hdlttata proeadura and avoid a circuit of
, aetiooa.

Th» WM a hflaring npon domumr bj tKe Defendant to tha Plaintiff's doola-
ration in an action en garantit, by which tho Plaintiff aeoka to charge the
Defendant with damagoa alleged to have b««n caused by him \o one Oatea, the
tenant of the Plaintiff, by roalon of tho demolition of a mitoym wall. For
theae damagea, Oatea in April 1808, brought hia action against tho Plaintiff
which is still pending.

The declaration of Oatea sets out : That on the Srd February, 1804 ho leased'
, from Delrechio by notarial loase for the tf rm of five years, a certain house in
St. Paul street, Montreal, known as the Albion Ilotel, with tho yard and out-
buildings belonging thereto. That ho took possession about the 1st May, 1854,
and although ho had paid his rent and fulfilled his own obligations under tho
lease, yet that Delvouhio had failed to continue him in quiet possession of the
promises, and tq keep thom in a habitable condition, but that he had been
disturbed in such pouoasion about the first day of May, 180? ; that the outside
walls in rear and on both sides, and the roof of said house and of the ontboild-
ings had been reniovod and taken away, and his property and fiimitnre were
thereby exposed to the weather for a period of six months, that he suffered
injury to his furniture ai\d in bis business aa a Hotel-Keeper, for which he had
loaaed tho premises, v^hi^^ business was rainod for a year, alleging that these
damages were caused " by reason of the state and condition of the said houses
" and by the negligence and carelessness of the Defendant, (Delveohio) and by
" his sorvanta and agenta ^ho failed to uae reasonable dil%ence to have the
house kept habitable, &o." He claimed £850 damages.

The present action waa instituted in January 1800. The declaration sets out,
that the Plaint^ was proprietor of thi (mperty above referred to. That thei*
is ap addition in the rear of the Hotel which extends some 70 feet, along the
line dividing the property from that of tha, Greenes and the Defendant, (Joseph)
an4 that at the end of the addition along the samo line there is a wood shed
add stable. The Lease to Gates is then set out ; that he took posaeision lit
May 1864, and had since occupied the property aa a Hotel ; that about the 1st
May 1867, Defendant demolished tiie mttoym wall, between hia and Flaintiff^s
said property in order to build. That this waa the wall of the addition to the
Hotel above referred to, and also of the Shed and Stable, and by its demolition
the interior of the buildings was exposed for some fifty feet. That the wall was

-M

SUPERIOR COURT, l8St.

ni

*t

la good ooMitioB at tlio timo It wm Uk«n 4own. Thit the D«f«nd«nt did not
rtpair PUlnilff'i pr«niiM«,bal Itft tlicm o|.«n for •ii rnonlhi, whawby (J»t«,, hi.
Unant, lout th« uio of hi* priiniiio^ ■uir«r»d kjr'cipoaur* of bit goods aiid f^|^
nitur., and «l«o by Iom of ou.tom. That (Ut«, hit tai.ant, had brought his
action at «bo»o r«f«rr«d to, dniming £3flO dainaff«is '« which Plainiiff had not
yat pitadod, tho I'liiintiff then «lr.ge^ tliat lh« damairii. wliich »era cauMd or
whu h may havo l>«fln cau»«d w«r« go oaiued in great part by the fiiult and
neglig«„ce of iha I>t,fa«d«nt (Jo.eph) in not cl<«ing by . partition tho part of
the building unooT«r«d, and by laaving thoin eipowd for .ix months and for
not having re.tor«rtho buildinga of tho'flaintiff to tfaa condition in which
thay wero beforo the wall wa<t takon down. That D«.lveohio as the Le«or of
Gatea it linble to him for hit damiigee in tho promi«)H,a4a that Jowph it bound
to guarantee Dtlvcchio in the action of Oatiiiand to indemnify him for any con-
demnation ho may auffer in reapoct to'the aoto of JiMoph.

The I)«fond«nt among other pleai pleaded a diftnit «n droit, which waa by
the preaenl Judgment diamiiaed, the reaaona of d««murrer aufflcieiltly appear in
tho remarka of the luamed Judge who gave the Judgment,—

BiRTHatoT, J.-La d^fenao en droit a pour but de nier au Demandeur le
droit de I'appeler par une ftution en gnranlie aimple, 4 ie garantir dea domma-
gea qu'il pouvoit avoir caut^a lui Difondeur, au locataire <lu Demandeur en
d*moli.aant le mnr mitoyen qui a«parait leura h*riUgea, et en laiaaant k d^iioa-
vort le locataire, plua longtempa qu'il n'^tait n6veaaaire.

Raiaona de la defense : '

lo. Parce que le D6fendeur n'^faut JMUJ«rtloj|tt oontrat pour rittfraotion
duquel le Demandeur cat poutaaivi. . ' » J

2o: Parce qje io Demandeur n'admetpaaqtie deaxloihmageaaient M CaOaL.
^3o. Parce quo le Demandeur ne pr6ten«| pas qw toua lea dommagea ont 6t6
caua^a par Joseph, et qu'il ne dit paa l^uela om 6t« caun«a par lui.

4o. Parce quo le Demandeur n« ae plaint que de la negligence du DAfen-
deur en faisant an acte Ugal, Be qm ne peat donner lieu k une action eo
garanlie.

60. Parce que auppoaant lea all^gada vraia, il a'enaaiverait denz ^tionA ild«*'
pondantea I'une de I'autre par Delyeohio, et par Gatea contre Joseph.

La qnestion pent se rAduira k eelle-d. Peat-on «tre passible d'une action
en garantie airople, sana dire ou avoir M partie 4 la convention, ou .a contnt
qai a donn6 lieu 4 la pourauite contre la garantie.

Ou encore la garantie peot-elle dtre exero^e aana le aeoouia d'aueun oontrat
qui oblige lo garant, maia aealement par auite dea obligations que 1« loi lui
impose formellement ou tacitenotent.

Si le D6fendeur a'*tait oblig6 par quelquV/« 4 garantir fd Demandeur de ce
qui fait le sqjet de la demande principale, il y aurait moina de difficult*, at IT
sufflrait de faire I'application dea principea ef de la doctrine maintenua
par la Cour d'Appel dans la cause de G^ii^Lhier et Darche rapport^e au ler
Vol. du Jurist, p. 201.

Maia dans I'espdce actuelle, ce qui fiiit la diffloalt6, c'eat que a'il y a garantie
a exercer par lo Demandeur, contre le Dfifendeur. elle r^aulto uniquement da la
aeule force de la loi, qui en donnant au D^fendeur, le droit de dimoUr le mur

■ V:

.^^

t4' .-y

¥

'>■>

\

0

./.

228

SUPERIOR COURT, 1869'.

IMrechlo

JOMph.

;-j?

1.-

^mitdyeiij^des heritages des parties, a voulu aussi qu'il fut reaponsable et mdmo
^prjant^jdes- dommages, qu'il ferait encourir au looataire du DemandeUr par
n^gn^nco.'

Ia garaatie do droit celle qni est 6tablie par la \p\y qui est de la nature du
contrat, eto^ n'a pas besoin dds lors d'etre stipul6e. .

Merlin la d^finit, " Un acte par lequel le D^f^ndepr an principal, appelle en
^ cause la personne contre laquelle il a un recours ^ e^ercer."

Bodier — "Legarant simple est celui qui est tenn par le droit, ou par con-
" vention, de relever et indemniser cellii qui est recherchi par action person-
"nelle." '

Roger Oollavdy-** Le garant n'est tenu d'assister le garanti que lorsque celui-
" ci n'est pas ea^'etat de se procurer jniticepAr Iui-m6me."

Ce serait bun ie cas dans I'eepdce actaelle puisqu'il n'y a qua le Difendeur
en garantie qui'pnisse bien expliquer ce qui a k\Jk fait.

Ferriere— Urand Coutume, Article 203. II y l&st dit que celui qui fait la
demolition du'mur mitoyen pour son utilit6 seule,' estobjigd de garantir son
voisin des dommages.

Fourtael^-Dn voisinage, vol. 2. De la reconstruction diSPjqanr mitoyen, J>&go
323. Apres avoir par16 de ce que les masons sont tenus d^ faire aux termes
de I'article 203 de la coutume avant de pr<^ceder 4 la demolition d'un mur
mitoyen et del'inconvdnient qui pourrait rSsulter de.l'insolvabilit6 des ma9on8 '
Soils' etaie^t seuls responsables. II ajoute. C'est pourquoi les pi-opri6taiires ^i
font faire W ouvrages doivent 6tre garants envers teurs voisins, des dipens,
dommages et int£r6ts causes par les demolitions, percements, et r^edifications
faits au mur mitoyen. , ■ ■ ^

!Si lesproprietiures qui b^issent sont garants envers leurs voisins des dom-
mages qui leur sont causes par la demolition du mur,— pourquoi ne le seraient-
ils pas aussi de eeux causes k leurs locataires. Je ne vois pas qu'il y ait raison
de^fiiire une difference. L'article dela Coutume a d6roge au°droit,commun en
permettant k celui qui veut b&tir de forcer son voisin ^ souffrir la demolition.

n y a pour ainsi dire, suspension du droit de jouissance de la propriete au
profit du voisin. Et il ne serait pas tenu de garantir le Demandeur de tous les
dommages qu^il pent lui avoir occasionnes ! Ce serait un^grande injustice.

Le Demandeur ne pent bien se defendre de Paction intentee contre lui ;
qa''en ayant en cause pour I'aider, celni qui a cause les dommages, et qui a>
dirige les travaux qui y ont donne lieu. ~ L'on pourrait mfime dire qu'il est de
I'interet du garant de connaitre ce que l'on prouvera contre le garanti snf Tac-
tion principtde, puisqu'il doit Stre tenia au moins pour une partie des dommages
reclames, ne fut-ce que par action ordinaire, en reoours d'indemnite.

La procedure sera facilitee en maintenant lia demande, et en evitant le cir-
cuit d'action qu'il fandralt faire autrement.

La preuve qni sera ftiite de^ontrera quelle portion des dommages doit etre
supportee par M. Delvechio, et quelle portion par M. Joseph.

> Defense en droit deboutee. .

Zeifanc <fe CaMi(^, for PlMntiffett ^ramntic.

CVow <fe -Bawcw/i}- for Defendant 'ew ^wwwfWi " \.^

(H.B.)

SOPBRfOR COURT, 18«9. . j^d

"ONTEBAL, BOTH APEIL, 18M.
^Of'O*!* BsKtHMlOr, ASST. J.

' '^ ': ' ■ *• . ' No. 8838. \ . ■ ■

J^aw«ttetal.y. Thompson etal. *

iheir option and choice of a trial by iurv S^^^^^ ^u^"" ^'^^ *^'*''"«^

cate . large quantity of leatLr vUThe Plai„t?"nT ^l""^^^' *" ''''''^^
/ro™^n,.«ndtbe;,easet„parr^^^^^^ •-!-

' good faith and in open J^^^ Vad ^S J /^^^^^

tried byajury, ifnot under the old lalrelatinflt^^^^^^^^ ^"^ >"^ *»' ^''

-ffe^Aunf, con/ra, argued, thai the nature of the PUinHffi.. J
the issue raised hv the Defon^«„f«' ! ! ^'""^'ff' demand, and not

whether or no^^h;ci«rwa^?uleo^^^^^^ question as to

demand here ^e^, Z Z::ZS^,VC^ ^Zf^'T
property, was^learly not a "debt, promiie contrl^T^ '^Oymag stolen
tUe natur," and was no. thereforrb^cTtr:: fr r^'i?!'^-

sions of the Act 14 & U Vic th«r mli^ „^ u ■ ,^' ' "* ""^ P'*^*"
2. George 3. chap. 2. s.;':i^'i:r'l^rnrretre it Z'^^'^f'"'
sub-section relied upon merely impliedly adTitrir th^th/ .^^"^^^^^
not necessarily be between merchant an5 merchlnf lli^/d f ""'''T "^
be of a mercantile nature MBr«nvl ♦k • / *^® *'*"'« ^^ »«*'<>»

prudence on the point in controversy • ' -^^ ^^ J""*"

The Court was with the PUintiffs apd the motion was i^ted.

J^ethune lA Bunkin, for Flaiatiffi. Motion rejected.

A,<t W. BoberUon, for Defendants.

• The 0M« here referred to was Kh iia iS— -j

A Co., to rerendicate certL blr«a ^ wLi ^"'^P* «»*•*« of Ferguson MUlar
w«, tried before a sp^^^ZZTia^f^T ^T' ""''•" * ^°- 'f'"' «"
then H.o.ed in arresf^f ju3Sn\ p^I^ tlfth; cl t' "^'t *^- '""' °««"'*">*-
the interlocutory order of iSs Coit mi! *? '''""'* "^*»'' *"«» "* "«•

upon the moUo^^of the sLdlfwSSlheflr *^« f »*/-'^-th day of July last,
this Court would revise, «d se ti^ «d ! S n *^. °V"'^ '"^ ""* "^^ «»*
>~dproceedm«. had Jd J:*?^^."^^"^'^""""^ -°-<^ «>» other orders, rule.

-*

.H

^^^^^^s^^^riSii^^

■ ■■ '■ '■■:■ aw ■

/

280

SUPERIOR COURT, 1869.

MONTREATi, 30T1I APRIL, ISSft

^ Com»y MONDELET, (C.) J. y

Nt>.1070.

The Mujior, .l<!7cmc« and Oifizens of the City of Montreal, Appellants.
antMroorf, Respondent. ,

yA«W-Tliat the 14 * 15 Vic, ch. 188. did not ronfcr on the Corporation of tlio City of Montreal
Biwer to impose a duty on the AgonU in tliis City of Foreign Imurance Companies doing buslnew
tlierein, and consequently tliat any Byo-Uw airecting to impoM such duty iirnuU and void.

This was an Appeal from a judgment of the Recorder of the City of Montreal,
rendered on the 6th day of May, 1868, dismissing a summons sued out by the
Appellants, to recover from the Respondent, as the " Agent to the Minn Fire
insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, one of the. United States of
America, a Foreign Insurance Company estabrwhed elsewhere than ip this^
city, but carrying on the business of insuring against loss by fire in this city,

' by Agency therein," the sum of £200 cy., as and for 4 year's of duty imposed.,
upon and payable by the said Respondent, " on the business of Agent to the
said Insurance Company," according to the provisions of the City Bye-Law,
No. 220, passed on the lOtb of May, 1852. ■„. -

^^ Jbe portion of the Bye-Law reiied upon is in the following words :— " That
an annual duty of fifty pounds currency, shall be and the same is hereby

■ imposed upon, and shall be payable ftnnuiilly, by eacK and every Fire Insurance
Company in this City, and by each and every person or fiim of persons, body
corporate or association, carrying on the business of insuring against loss by
fire in the said city ; and by the Agent or Agents of each and every Forei^'

"ffl"^

arrest and stay the pronouncing of, and not pronounce judgment on the verdict ren-
dered by the special jury." The Court (composed pf Justices Rolund, Gam and Day,)
rendered judgment on the 28th of September, 1844, as follows :— "JChe Court, • • •,
considering that this action was not sttsceptible of a trial by jury, doth grant the said
motion, and the Court hereby declaring the Interlocutory order nmde in this cause, on ,
the twenty-ninth day of July last, illegal, doth set aside the same, and declare nnll.andt^
void all the proceedings had in this cause since the fifteenth day of July last." From
this judgment an appeal was sued out, and l)y the judgment rendered on such appeal on
the 10th day of July, 1846, the Court of Appeals (composed of Sib Jamm Stoabt,
Chief Justice, and Justices Bowbn, Bbdabd, Homdclxt, (D,), and Oaibdnir,) confirmed
the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench. The following was the judgment of the
Court of Appeals :— " The Court • • • , considering that the subject matter of the
acUo9 of the Respondents, in the Court below, was not such as legally to admit of a trial
' by a jury, and (heir verdict thereupon, and that thetnterlocutory judgment of the Court
below, ordering a trial by jury in this cause, and the proceedings thereappn had, and _^
the verdict of the jury in this cause rendered were and are illegal, and oonsidering
therefore that in the. judgment of^the Court below, which hath been appealed from,
there is no error; It is by the said Court nqw here adjudged, that the judgment
appealed from, namely the judgment of the Court below in this cause rendered on the
twenty-eighth day of September, in the year of eur Lord one thousand eight hundred
and forty-four, be, and the same is hereby in all things affirmed, with costs to the said

Respondents against the aaitrAj'P^^*"*^-^

(.••. B )

Si

\

\ ,

SUPeJiIOU court, 1859.

281

M I

Fire Insurance Company, oij ^llier iDsnrance ^otnp«ny established elsewhere »heK.m.*«li
tftan in this City, bnt carrying on the business of insuring against loss by fire in wSd
thiscity, by %ency therein." ' " • ^'

The Responilont plmled six pleas in the Court below, in the fifUi of which he
in effect alledged that the Bye-Law under which thetax h(id been imposed did
not compriBe the Respondent, and that the impo.vlion w.is illegal and unjust
and that the Bye-Law was utterly void. V *' *

The following is the judgment rendered by the Recorder, the Hon. Joseph
Bourrct:-"ThoCourt * * * , considering that the said Prosecutors had
no power «•• «"tbority by their Act of Incorporation, 14 & 15 Victoria, chap. .
1^8, intituled ' An Act to amend and consolidate the provisions of the Ordin-
' ance to Incorporate the City and Town of Montreal, and of a certain Ordin- ^ .
^ ance and cettam Acfe amending the same, and to vest certain other powers
. in the Corporation of the said City of Montreal,' to impose a duty or duties on ~
the Defendant as Agent to the ^tna Fire Insurance Company of Hartford. _ -
Connecticut, one of the United StateB of America, a Foreign Insurance Com-
pany esrablished elsewhere than in the City of Montreal, doth dismiss the said
Prosecution wiih cost&^i, jib. / ^

The power (if any)j|JRho Bye-Law is contained in the 58th Section of
the Statute referred|HBl is in the following words :-" On all Insurance
Companies and on aP^Rg q(; or for any Insurance Company o» Companies
in the said City, and all premises occtf^ied by such Insurance Companies or '

by.any Agent or Agents of or for any such in the said City." ' ' '

Per CarfV«».— (After stating facts.) It is evident from the wording of the
Statute that the Conjpany must be one in the City and not a Foreign Company
having an Agency here,— and, to make it clearer, we find the following enact-
ment a little farther down in the same section of the law, and as it were in oon- '
tradistinction to the other provision :—«pn all Agents of Merchants residing
i^ any other city or place in this said Province or elsewliere." Now, however
powerful the Corporation may be, they must loam that they are not omnipotent
and that on the coBtrary they are subject to be restrained by this Court. Had
I any doiibt, which i have not, I would have given it in favour of mercantile
freedom. So, under any aspect of the case, I am disposed to confirm the
judgment rendered by the Recorder.

The following is the judgment rendered by the Superior Coart :— - *

The Court * • •—Considering that the Council of the City of Montreal have ' fl

not and never had the power to impose a tax, such as^hey illegally have done in '

and by * certain Bye-Law, No. 220, at a special meeting of said Council held
on the 19th day of May, 18Se, upon -the Agent or Agents of eafeh and 'everr
Foreign Fire Insurance Company, or other Insurance Company established
elsewhere than in the City of Montreal, but carrying on the business of insu^'nc
against loss by fire in said City by Agency t}ierein ;— considering that the said
Council hath thereby transcended its authority, and assumed rights and powers
which their Charter, the Stattjte 14 & 15, Vic, chap. 128, doth nqi;, vest in them •
■ onnsidnring that tho judgment of the R»icord«>t-ofLtf,e-e}^ ^ Montreal of ^ "~a
the 6th day of May, 1 858, wherefrom the present Appeal hath been instituted

■ ■ ! , .• '■'■ r- : ■

■m,

>?

/■

2t2

SUPERIOR COURT, 1869.

h Mayor et*i. hath rightly declared the aforesaid ' Bye-Law boU and void, aud that there ia '

ywd. no error in the said judgment. l)othconfirmlhQBMd judgment, and dismiss '

the said appeal, ^ith qosts against the Appellants, both in the Recorder's Court

and in this Court. ^ . . . ^

-^ -V Judgment of Recorder confirmed.

Henry Stutrt, for Appellants. - ' ^

Bose d ifonkf (or Rwmmi^nL, - . * - , '\

(8.B.)' . _ *^

A

^■«

MONTB&AL, APRIL »«TB,18n»^i

Coram C. Mondelxt, J.

". '' . No. MM,

t -. ■ - -

Ca^dbn et til. vs. FiNL^Y et ah.

Note — Proof of Pathkkt.

iIUonof»wita«H

'"'^S.;

../

Bblo — l,it^lut ih« omission of the miukl words " up»r$i$Uf at tjie ^nd of the denpplti
isnoimtai. -!,''-. i

and. That the payment of the amount of a prctmissory note, ae between Tartlet npt traders, cannot b«
proved by witnesses. . , " ' • ^

The action was for 'the purpose oC establishing the p^ment'ofKne amount 'of
a promissory notc^ payable tp order," held by the executors Of the late Seneca
Paige, and was di.rect^d against the executors, the declaration alheging payment .
of th»notc, and the conclusion of^.the.declaration prayed.tha{^he note might be
declared to hanr^e- been paid; and i^he defendants held to deliver it up to the
, r plaintiffs, the makers thereof. Or to Brant them discharges. The plaintiffs proved
- by three witnesses' the payment of mb not6. > ^^^ ' , " *

Do1ur(yy.$or\!ti^ ie>hvi^xi\»y contended that^the no\^ was not a commercial
transaction, not being between traders,, and ttiereforo the English laws did not
(^-regulate the matter so as to admitof proof of payment by witnesses, but only the
Erench laws of Canada, according to which, the evidence of witnesses to prove
a payment was inadmissible. He also moved that certain ^positions t&ken in the
cause, be rejected from the record as'illegal, fkom not having the sacramental
words «t the end, that the witness under examination " penisted" in, his state-
ment. - ; • - . ' . ■..•,. ' ,-•»;- '■■'
Pbr curiam, aftef stating the ftscts ; The' counsel for the defendants^ Mr. D6herty«
made a singular objection as to the'va]idity of a deposition wbicn^did not state
at its close that the witness " persisted" in his statement I always thoitight that
,the "word "persist," in that connection, was a necessary wor<y but J find I am
mistaken on reference^to the ordinance of 1667, Tit 32, Art 16, and the objec-
tion therefore falls to the ground^ , '

The other qu4ttion is a much more serious one. Three witnesses swear to
the payment of the note. -Isitajegal proof! The. Act 12, Vic, c. 22, s. 25
enacts -that in all matter relatHlrg to bills and notes, not therein specially provided
for, recourse should be had in all Courts in Lower Canada, to tjie laws now in
force ther&, and Ip the absence of such laws, to the laws or^England in f^rce at
the tim^ijl Ji^ p»»aing-af iW flgt^j,BLdii).M of m-facta in ^Matfeag-

« ■■>^, .^ >

«

:-.'r-

^"^

• i
«

SRIOR COURT, 1850.

218

and .mts fbunaedW MI- .„d i,o.e,. reoou^chouklbe had in all .uch coSrU c«^
to ^e laws of EnglandJn forco at the time of the pacing of the act iZl iS

Canada, if ^oy «.Bt, shall govern, and otherwise, the l.wa of Endand" In fl,"

ca^,th.Ja# of Lower Canada doe. not .dmit of the evidence'of w£ J" JU^

Thejudgmcnt was recorded aa follows:- "^wiinesMe. ^ o(^g
"La Cour apria avoir entendu Ie«<,artie. par leur« avocats, sur le merite d«

cetto cause el sur la raotiOn du defendenrdu vS^gUin^ ^vrM c<^Z[!L!! - '

m.ser « decider sur le, objections p,r eux fait, .„ L7g.^^JeZlZl > ' ^

IXi'^^"" -^^^^^^^ decision decette Cour et.qri^.ites :^,eUrt "^

^^Sf^rlj^T ?'"'"* ''^P''^*''^^^^ preuveet^oirsn^ .
_«md6l|b6r6cons,d^atffVisie8deman^^^ pas fait une preuw ttmile

^ante des alljgu^ ^„Uel, de leur decl^ratlon^t nomJZT^ p^ 4 "
m«rt de deu, «,nt pi^tt^ en acquit d6cha.ge et extinction d'un J>iUet q,^ f '

J« due «5t,on pvec d6pe„s d.stttiiu a Mr; Doherty, avpcat dec4efendeur..

Xe6fa«c<feCa«,rfypourIe.Demandeu«/ .. Action diMniswd.

Jf. 2>(?A€r^ pour les Defendeuis '^ ■ • .' .

(f.<lr.i.) ^

■.I.;-

a

• «

•<

MONTREAL, 30th APRIL, 1869.

' Comm jkfoNDK WT, (0.) jr. I'
. 'i^— No.l«03. ' V

.%

-^;

; ' / ' ,i >^^■^o/nf^,v8.:^7b«5pA.Y ■* >^''': " •4,.,.'""

cer^nper<»i.t.g«on the outlwby the proprietor^^*^^'1^'^^

iLlLlii'T tr'"^ P^'*"' ""^ T'^'^^^t'o"^. *nd Isuperfctending he buH^ '
ingofi^Wockofhousesewctedby.tlieDefendant. ,- ^ ;^ *•.!?"'*

«ons -and for commission as Hsustpmar^in like ;<y«e.r ind usualT^inZ ^
• tt^^Tll'^'^ houses, at th, special instaZt^^^ V

S^;.«:;^i::ri:^"*^*-'^^^^

The plea was thegeiwral iSsne. The Plaintiffs alid ■D^n.i.n*' •/

Fi^..T. „„.■«. H.«^, . ^, ^ ^.„,.,. ^^...,.^^;p^;:^°^«;' >

?«CcRrAM:-^lWrstatingfacts)-tn,eCourtia«gain.tPl.btiff Jknow * ' '
of nonght m archUectaor any other body of ken, h^^.ymJ^'J^"Z^ .1 ,^.

1:.

>, A /

'*'

\-;

/

f

VootMr
JoMph.

,-j-i.

y^i

384

SUPERIOR

COUI^T, .1850.

yen or otUera, to make teriffiMo' themtelvM. Mere proof that a charge of the
kind in qudltion »«u«ual, ia wholly UauflBciont. It it morooTer an ui^Bst rule
taeatablUh even in favor of the arohl|ecte*theln»eIve^ for it might happen that
4 per cent wa« utterly iniwlecjuatc is a remuneration in^ certain casci. The
action is therefore dismissed. ' ' .. . "

The following is the judgment of the Court:— « The Court •,* * fionsideriBr
that the Plaintiff hsdLJWt proved ajidBrtablishiedtlie material allegations of
hU declaration, namely, that he ha^ against pefenjiant any right of action,
for a commission of 4 per cent, as iii and by his declaration, and in and by hi*
action claimed :—Con8tdoiing moreover, that the ftaintiff hath not proved and
established Wat he ever w^ employed or requested by Defendant to perform
any of the services by him, said tlfintiff in and by his declaration and acfiou
alleged and claimed:— And considering that the Plaintiff hajh not piroved and
■ estabKshed, that he hath any legal/rigHt to recover of and from the Defendarft
any sum of money, for the causes/in said declaration set forth, and claimed by

the present action :— Doth dismiss/ the said Plaintiffs' acUftn with costs."
^ I Action dismissed.

Mackay <k Auttin for Plaintiflfe.
Klhtrrier, Dorian d- JDorion (ot Defendanf.

(8.B.)

sy-' ■

Cm(?UIT COUIiJ, 1859.
FOR THE iboUNTY OP ARGENTBUIL,

/

liApHUTE, IttH MAY,A88»

Coram smith j.

The Corjioration <\f thepatiaji of St Jerusalem vs. Qu%nn\

l.-A CorportttonmiutiuolnUio^nname and be itself before tho C3oiirt •. widwiactionin which It ;■

purports to be wprewnted l)y ll» executive. wlU be diMniwed.
2.— In such » esse there to nothing iownend by.

This was an action institited by the corporation of the parish of Si Jerusalem
D'Argenteuil, for an assessment to which defendant appeared to be liable for the
building of a bridge. Thfe suit was by " the corporation of the Parish of St-
Jeriwilcm repreienttd hyl the Municipal Council of the ParM*p|g4i /miwZ^,
Plaintiff ".—the Defendant pleaded by exception d la forme, objecting amongst
other alleged defects in/the proceedings, to this mode of instituting Uie action.

The case was argued in February term. -/i

Jtbbott for Defendant argued that the corporation was not before the Court—
and that the defect was fatal.

Bum^ha for Plaintiffs contended, that as the municipal and road act of 1855

provided that all ^'unicipal corporations should apt by their Councils, the

■Corporation was w/u before the Court bjr its Council. i

/ Aft^r argument/^Mrrott^A* for Plaintiffs moved to amend the declaration by

striking out the Words « represented by the Municipal Council of the Parish of

St Jerusalem "which wasobjectedtoby ^66o« for Defendant, on the ground that

^^,^rowa8"3^to^OTjr^r^nhemoK=p^e^I^
and that^n an^endment would create Plaintiffs whan none previoAsly existed.

CIRCUIT OOURT, 1850.

trothef

Smni, J., had gfvfc theciwo his best consideration, had coniulted hit brothef
Judges on tlM> .ubjecU and had also had the advantajto of referring to a numbtr
of cases in point adjudicated upon by throe judges. There was no doubt what-

; ever that the action was »!frongIy instituted. None but the Queen could soe
by an attorney or fepresentative.'and that was what the Plaintiffs hera had
jlttempte<l to do. It was quite true that its Municipal Council wns the inslrumentor
agency by which a Municipal Corporation acted, but it was the Corporation itself
which had received as one of i& corporate powers, that of suing and being sued
and It must itself do so in its own corporate name. Unless, therefore, an'
amendment was posfciblo the action must go. But what was there to amend ?
If tJie Plaintiffs* motion were grant«M, the effect would be to remove entirely
from before the Court, the Council, which aow,wa« the only b«ly i„ Court,
rho Corporation were ^ot in Court, and if by the granting of the.motion the
Council should disappear there would be no Plaintiffs at all. 'The nine cases of
Exparto Gnines and eight others, fleoidod at Montreal in October 1856 by three
Judges wore in point. Inhere similar suits were instituted before a maristrate in
n^imilar manner to this, and the Defendants were condemned, but on certiorari

■m whole of the judgements were quashed on the ground that there was no
jurisdiction 19 the magistrate to entertain suitJ "brought by attorney If there
was nojnrisdictiorf there could be no,8mcnd!neht.-The action must be dis-

> inipsed. ,

^wrroM^fA*, for Plairtt^. , , * ' ''* -.» _^

ilfcZeorf, for DefendaW.^. • . * v ^

/ 46K»</, counsel for Defendant. • ' . • ,

aj.c.A,) . 1- , '^ .

NoTi._Eiglit othet_c8S03 instituted by tlie same Plaintiffs and in the same manner as
llie foregoing, were dismissed >af the same time' upon the iame grounds. There was
only this difference, th&tm exception dia forma Ivas pleaded io them— they beingactions
for small amounts and iltn-appealable.' -

CO UK SUPERIEyUE..
MONTREAL, 23 MAI IStia. '
Coram C. Mo^idelet^ J.

■T

.i-y ..

•; . MONTREAL, 2« MAI 1859. ' . ^

' Cbmwi C. MoNDBtp, J. r ' .V i

■ * .' No. 169. •■ .. - ; •

LaSpeUU deCmMruHum CamUienne de Mmtrial vs. Lammtagne

■f

..QHUUIr-

of

■T..

La dite SocUU, Dei^anderesse inSaTnte en D^saven, y^§ifrenaye, p6fendear ■

en Disavea.

*

Dksatku. W- '

.:^U-

?*

m

'M"-

:S^P?'~

236

COUR SUPEUIEURE, 1860.

8od4Mda Com- ivn6 lo. Que
tnwiwii

Cuia-

l'A'<

ilon, dant UqurlUs lo cUSMveu Mt liMtltuA. «Unt m d(iUMrt, to dwiiaiida^n (Mmvmi
Mt lion miovA^lc, qiioique rmppbrt4!fl ntculiercinenl d'alllwn.

Luaontaenc.

f.

r

Le 23 luai 1^50, la doinando prinoipalo 6taDt sur le ri^le, pour audition.au
m^rite ex parte, la Domandereaiw) fit motion qu'il lui fut donn6 acte do la pro-
duction qu*elle fn^Bait d'>ino demande incidcnto en d^saveu, par ello inititudo.
eontre le procureu^ qui pr^tendait la ropr^senier au dossier, laqi^olle demande
avail 6(6 signifi6e ai^dit procurour le 21 mai courant (1850), et 6taii rapportabU
le 26 du dit tnois de mai, sauf au dit prooureur k n'6tre tcnu d'y r6pondro qu'jt-
prds le jour du rapport.

Doutre, pour la DenianclercsHO en disaveu, oxpliqua que la demande n'ayant
pa 6tre form6o et rapport6e i»iut6t, il croyait qu'il suffisail do mettre la cour au
fsitde I'institution du d^s^vcu, pour obtenir la suspension des proc6d68ct nolam-
ment do Tavdition au rairite ; que la production anticip6e de la domando en
46savou ne pouvait prdjudipier^personne et que la trfltion r6sorvait sp6cial«-
mentlesdroits.du D6rendeu^ond6!>areu. En France, le d^saveu verbal otmdme
la menace d'un desavou su£Seiait pour suspondro Ics procddos. <

Merlin, R6p. Vo. D6savou, p. 601. ^ ' ^ '

Carr6 et Cbauveau,t. 3, No;i314.

Ici il y a plun qu'un disaveu yerbal, plus qu'un^ menace, — il y a un ddsaveu
forracUement institu6 et le but d^.la motion n'est que d'en saisir la pour, par an- .
ticipation. ^ \

Per Curiam. II suffit que I'avis ^e cettc production anticip6e n^aj^) pas 6t6
donn6 k la partie adverse, pour qae\)a cour refuse d'en prendre connaissance.

\ Motion, rejetie.

Le 26 mai, jour da rapport do la requite ct demande incidente en d6savou,
la cause principale 6tait' ond61ib6r6 sur le m6rite, — et la requ6to ou defnando en
disavou 'fut prodaite ; Thon. juge 6prouvant des doutes, sur la possibility de
recevoir un d6savea^' quand la cause 6tait en' d61ib6r6, re^ut la demande en d6-
•aveu, sauf & prononcer lolendemain sur son ^admissibility. *

" Doutre, pour le d68aveu»,dit qu'il 6tait incontestable que le d^savea poilvaft
^tre form6, en tout 6tat de cause et m6me aprds jugement ; et quie lorsqaMl 6tait
inBtitu6 avant jugei&ent, I'effet imm6diat de la' production du d^savea, 6tait de

^Bospendrd tous les proc^d6s et que cette interruption durailrjusqu'jk ce qu'il fut
adjug6 sur le d6saveu. |1 cita : ,; * _

Carr6 et Ch*uv(Bau, fc. 8, pp. 267, 274, 275 et saivant. * , ^ , P^

Pigeau, Proc. civ., t. 1, p.^8. -. \

Bioche; Diet, de Pr<te.,Vo. D6iaveu Nos. 65, il».
erlin, R6p., Vai Dqs^vefl, § VII, p. 601. ,

URIAH. La caiue principale 6tant en d6Iib6r6, la dismande en d^oaven

^trerc^ue. . ^

*'' ■'/■ '. Requite et demande incidente en d^saveu rejet6e.

J. JDottfre, pour la deroanderesse end^sav^m. * .'.

J". Pqpin, pour le D6fendeu^. .* ''\.'

r5 — ■ — 1 — - — [— ■ y^—^ — , ■ .

...;■■. ;---;^/^' \ ■,".. . -i/;' \. .^...v^: #'.;..;■ ■' " ■' ■."-■'■;•

- '■.>■■":>■"«'

j&;

%\

COUR SUPERIEURE, 186».

287

/T

» MONTRiAL, 38 MAI I8W.

(7oram 0. MondIuit, J.
" Nciaw. ^ ,

f PlRllfPTIOif, o'lHBTAIfOS.

i'«,-r..-Le 9 m.i 1859. U D^fendeur fkit .fgniflor aux avocU du Demin-
deur one moUon den,.nd.Dt qu'.ttendu <,«'ll .W <Scoul6 plu, 4^ 3 ah. depuis
e dernier proc«d6 f.H ea cette cu«^ ain.1 qu'appert au certifier du pro oT
tairedeeettecour.produit'aveo I. ^r*A„f , eette instance, «>it d^clirCri-
m6e.etc. Oette motion fut»ignifl6eentre n.idi et une hVure de ) W^.^d
U mftme jour, aprds deux heure. et dbmi de l-appd-midi. le DtfendeTpa"«,
.vo^ta, d^posa a« greffe «n. r6pon«. aux d^feie. du DifendeT^'plul de
3 an. auparavant. I-e oertificat du pr«JtonoUire,produit A-lWui de U 2«n
P^rtait ladate d<,Ja.^ification deU motion et cltaj^^^^^^^

Mann, poor le Demandenr.-Aa mom^t oiT cette moUon e«t pr«.ent«e k U
cour. le, ,*gi.t.^ de cetf cour 6ublis.ent qn'un proc^* utile a ^^ d^ t

le.3ansqn.pr6c*dent,Mvoirle9niaicourantetrin.tanc^ne p«uteneS
quence, Atre d6clar6e p6rim6e. «»»nce^ ne peut en eoti.6. ,

Jhutre, pour le D6fehdear.-Si la pretention du Denuindenr 6Uit eonfirm*. '
par cette cour. .Ineserait^udro po«ible d'obtenir une peremption dMn.Se
car comme une demanded cette nature ne peut 6tre fai^qC^- av 2^"^'

^tre^e.i.ntr^.eded.t^ Zt':;:::^^;:^:!^ . •

Ki?!.?""^*'' . ?r^ <!"« Ju-qu'^ rOrdonnance-de Bou8.illo??%„ ^.^tait
b»nd6fin. quant k Ij p^nption d'in.tance ; car. par I'Ordonna^de itsiv •
<Fran5oi.ler)ilffofut8tatu6 que ce qui .nit: « D ne iera dorAn«.„! k -iix

Z'^TT'^'''^'^^ deLrtion'ni P^rempLn d'ln^^Tq^^^
cauw etmatidre que ce soit; et « elles 6t«ientbaill6^ dfifendonaXvoiSun ^

dtr^lZ T r'^r '" •"^•*" ^«™' *tre"ugee.7out ainS ;^TS
diteslittwaD'avaientefeobtennesniimpetreeB." i ;

Cette oidonnancenedefinininecaracterisel. peremption t le ieiri.fateur .nl
poeequelV^itparfidtementen^

(

* ' m

1' „•

•

; t

%

' J"

11''

r>:

, '■ :■■(

'

'

ii

,

'- 1

•''

' 1

fi

1- ,;■

2^Zf .!? '• "'J""** ^"« ^^ •'**•»" de ce temper nZ-'

appt^nnent qn'^lor^ comme aujourd'hui. il fallait 3 an. de ce«.tion^e p^

i\

.^

■''^-tt:

286

COUK HUPERIKURE. 18A9.

niDgiut.

durot pour i|u'unc iiiMauc.u fut |>6riui6o. &1hU od pr6ienilait,<;ontinue-t il, d'uno
p«rt, qu'uiH: foin la contoitMtion o» ckuiu tiiigagfte, il n« pouvait plus y nvoir Mou
k la ii4^roiuption ; ot de rautre, que riniiUnco p^rim^u d«VHit enooreivoir Tofftt-

d'interrompre la proscription .C'cst pour condanin«r cea deux syi*

timet qu'Jk 6t6 fait Tarticto 15 do TOrd. do KoaMilion.du muia de janvior IMS.
'^LWafance Ih(if)ht6d (porte-1t) 0r«r qu'oUe loit conteRt^, ti, |>ar lafSR de 3 ^
ana, ell* est diflcontinu^o, n'aura aaoun etfat de p«rp£tait6 uii proroger I'HCtion ;
ainai auia la proscription apn courH, commo si la dite instanuo n'avait 4t6 f»rni6e
ni introduito, 'ot hanx qu'bn puinae prStendiola dite ttroaoription avoir 6t6 inter-
rompue." ^ ^.

L'Onl. do f020 kucc6da k collo de^RouMillon, M voioi ce que porte Tart'. 01 :
'*L'art. 15 de TOnl, do Rousoillon aera gard6 par tout notre royanmo, ot mtime
en noa cours do parlomont ct antrea jurisdictions oil elle n'a ^t^ jusqu'ioi obaec*
w6e, et voulons que teutca inHtances do cri6o8 piriHsent, par U discontinuatipa da
troia ans, nonobstnnt r^tabliiisemont do oominissaifea; comm^xticore toutes
saisics et arrets de deniers, oncore qu'41 n'y out aucune assignatiun donnde en
consequence d'iccux,'pareilleni«nt quo leacAusoa misea aux r6lea«oient aujottea k
peremption, k compter du jcur que I'on oc«ho db plaidec lea dita r6les,^oit que lo
rdglement au conscil eoit lev6 oh ndn." . *

Voili k peil pres tout ce que Ton a jusqu'i cotte ^poquo. Caril semblo qu«
CO n'eat ni dans lea lois Romainea, ni dans I'Ord. do Philippe le Bel, qui la
suppose 6tablio ut des lora on usage, qu'on trouvo I'initiative do la peremption
d'instance. II6vin, dit Merlin, la qualifi^o dojun vcri gallicum. Elle nc fut paa'
introduitc dans touto la France.

Merlin, loco citato XIX, dit:' "La peremption, dans les pays ot lea cas oi^
elle a lion, ne e'ncquiert pas do pjein droit ; il faut la demander, ot avant qette
demando la moindrc proc6dure coHvro la p6remption ct fait subsiater I'inatance."
n rdfdre k son recueil de questions do droit, pour ^tablir la jurisprudence k 6et
6gard. (Vb. Peremption, § II et III.) H T6f6re k I'Ord. de 1667, tit. 27, art 5,
et dit k la page 707 : " Jusqu'& present, nous no voyons le I6gi8lateur occap6,
par rapport k la peremption, que du soin do determiner les cas ou elle a lieu, et
"^'effet qu'ollo produit rolativementil la prescription ; maia s'acquiert-elle dc pleia
droit, par le aeul laps de' troia ana, ou fant-il, apres ce temps, que le jugo la de- ,
dare acquise ? C'est cc qu'aucune loi ne decide encore. '

Avanoona, continue-t-il, et nous trouvorons IJi-desaua quelquea lumieres dans
I'ort 76,'du titro 27 de TOrd. de 1667. Les aentencea et los jugemcnts qui
doivent paaacr en force de choA jugeo, aont ceux rendus en dernier reasort et
dont il n'y a pas appel, ou dont I'appel n'est paa reccvable, soit que lea partiea y
enasent formellement acqnieace, ou qu'ellea n'bn oussent intagete appel dans le
tem^ ou que VafpelaUitidiclari peri.'" : ,ff^ i

Ou que V appel ait iti didari piri I ajoitte Merlin ; il fant done que la p6remp- "
ti<Mi aoit declaree par un jugement ; II faut done un jugement dedaratif de la
peremption pour qu'elle puiaae avoir lieu, la peremption n'eat done pas acquiae
de plein droit par le poul laps do trbia ans, et c'est auasi ce qu'enaeigne Potbier,
dana a^n traite dea obligationa, STo. 888. " Qnoique ce temps aoit affcompli, -

"""^

..-^lA^

I COUR HUPERIKUKK, 1(189. ' tt9

(dU-il) 1* i>*r«ii^|,tl„„ du 1'm|.|wJ iiVut p«» flcmiis«, ju«m.'i\ ,* qu'il noit iiiterv«8u
ui|jug*iim.Mt ijui I'hU il6clttr6e noquido.'* , ; ^

Joum),t. '2,mr I'art. 5 do litro 27 <lo TOrd. d« 1867, dit h U paiyt I»5 :
J*,p6r«imitlunno»'nc<juicrt pn* d« ploin droit p«r discontinuation de pr..cA.

<fliDB« pjiidant troiii an» : maii| il faMt, un* Miit«no6 ou joiroment qui dic\»tf

riniitanco on I'appnl p<ii|."

' ,*' ^«'» tant qu'il n'y a point i'U do' juRoment qni ait <l6ctar6 PinnUnco pdrie,

l.p6remplion „,:« pa. lieu, dan, k-n affaire, qui y «,nt 8uj•ttc^ .i la parlio qui

-' IT*'"'" P*™'"P^'"" '"Wend i'in.tanc., ai o!l« tonne qu«lque dcmandc. fournit

.. dfifenso, ou ai oll« fait quelque autro procdduro ; et .'il intervient rfuolquo ar-

pointoincnt o« jugejnoi.t iikerlocutoire ou dfiflnitif, poHrvu que ««. procAdurin

, sojent connuea de la j»fti« ot fitites par »on ordre."

Pip«" «eniblof'6'voquer on douto oette doctrine, au f. 1 do l« procWuro cifil.
du Ch&tclot pp. 355. 856 ot 857 (Edit, de 1787). Aprd. avoir indiqu6, pa.
une formule de .oqu6to. comment .o doit dcmandor la peremption, il oliervo. u
l« p. 357, " Cotte demando formde, colui qui a «lev6 I'instance pirie, ne pout
plu. convnr la peremption; ccpendant, M. J„u««e .«r Part. 5 d« til. 27 d<,
lord de 1067, prAtond qu'il faut un jugomont qui didare cotte instance p6rie ;*
ma.. 1 opmion g6„6r«lc ent q„4 la demando est .uffiKante pour i'«cqu6rir, autrc-
^nt une part.e pourrait n6gli^er une instance qu'elle aurait introduito. et pure."

uirrr".' . ''"""'*''''^' *" pour^uivant, ^ur cotte fh.tance. av.i.t I.
jugomont^de p6rempt.on, «u irtoyen do quoi, P6tabii««ment do cctte p6romption
serait illusoire. r i ,

M. Pigeau parait croire quo M. Jou«« a bn«.rd* une opinion,' tandi. quo c«^
dermer „ a fa,t r.en autro chose quo-do s'en tonir au texte mfime dc I'Ord. dont
PJgeau ne t.ent aucun compte. Tige.u nfianmoina reraarque 4 la page 385 quo
lop n.on g6„6rale ct que le Demandeur pout couvrir la pLmpUoJ,,^ pourL-
»an .ur aa domande, mftmo apris le temps do la peremption accomplie,7ourvu
qu 1 le faaw avant quo cetto pAremptibn <^t require. II ajoute quo la di/aveur
^la pirtmpt^on a fait introduire cotte interruption. A la page 366, il continua
Au 8urpI^,^ do quelque «6t6 que vienne cotte interruption, elle a'op^re par le
^f^o^ vahhlement fait, au^I. p„ie6duro n^gligio, avaht bi demando en
p6rempt.oD, comme un avenir, clc.; mais il faut quo cet actc soit r*gulier et

^ On demandora pout 6tre si I'avis quo I'on donne d'uno motion, pour p^^onip
bon d .mtance, est une domande, dans lo sens que Ic donne Pigeaa ; si on rc'.pond
dans I affirmat|ve, al^rs 8UPPOS6 quo I'on adopto' le .^nUml de Pigeaurdes
procWures^bs6quo»tes i cet avis, necouvriraioBi pas la b6remptiom i\ a«^

valable. fa,t entre IW et la prfisontation do U motion, couvrir.it la p^reftp-
toon. I-e tro.8,emc sentiment serait que tant que le>gemont de la cour n'au-

' T ^t, ^ '"'^""' P*""*'- °° '* P**"''"''' «°°''rir, par un proc6d6 utile
Ot valable. Copendant,4nai,t k cc dernier scnliment, I'on pourrait dire qu'une
fo.s la motioj, ou demando prise en d61ib6r6, on ne pourra^ dans notre syitem.
qn gjfflMfb fftire annun prne^d6. • i. ^

UuMidri
I'llniruot.

*

t

■ -A

{ 4

U9

n.

111 . ..

COUR SUPIRIEURI, 1860.

^n Ou«(]r, 1« ■fifitimant la mi«tii I6ni\(», fl>«t qu« !'■? ja n'Mt pan U dtoiMidtL
qu'uti profl«<lA ntil« «i vaUblii oiitr« r»vJB «t !• molion ou la dtroM<l», coat r« la
peremption. £n ooiia^quonce l« motion wt rcJttAo avm dApaoa.

0 Blotiun n^at^ '

Ouimtlf Morin et Marehand, pour la Domiindaar.
Douirt fi Daoutt, pour lo IMfandaar.

#" Aulorit4e$ dtde$ far rifm. Jngf,

Marlin, I»p. Vo, P*romption, gt XIX. f "

" Queif. do D., Vo. Peremption, 8 m. |.

Pothier, Obllg. No. 8fl8. • .. ^

Pigaau, (Edit, do 1787) pp. 868, 886 ct 887.' ' ''•' '^ \ ,^

Jou«w, Ord. do 1867, t. 2, p. 178, tit. 28, nrt. fc ~ ' * ^■''

I's"

HONTRBAL. Sin MAY, im.

Comm Badolbt, J.

No. 797. it

OreeiuMelda et. al. va. Planumdou.

%

QoMPOIITIOIt OB AtISMOIIMBNV^

'Il(iid.-Th«t • pramiMorr note or mny ooniidantlon given by ui luaolvcnt debtor to *> e^tlitor, in
oontempbttion of * deed of oonipoeitlon, and aa a prehranee to inch creditor, without tlia know*
ledfte of the other oreditora, ia null and void, and will be declared ao even aa agaimt the i
pounding debtor himaaUi

This action was brought on a promissory note given by the Defendant in
faTOor of the Plaintiffs, or order, on the 11th Dee., 1854, for the amount of
i.lUO, payable at 20 months flrom date, with interest.

The Defendant alleged in his plea, that, subsequent to the date of said note,
to wit: on the 5th January, 1855, the said Defendant being unable to meet his
engagements, he compounded with^his creditors, by an instrument in writing,
bearing the above date, in virtue of which he obtained a discharge from all his
creditors, in consideration of ten shillings in the pound, which he undertook to *
pay, at oertain.and specified terms, by notes (indorsed in favour of said creditors;
that the Plaintiffs were parties to' the said composition, which was duly executed
and carried into effect ; that the note declared upon by Plaintiffs being anterior
to the date of the said composition, it ought in law to be covered and discharged
by ihe composition deed ; that if the note wos not covered by th^ said composiv.
tion, it ought to be held as fraudulent and^void, as destroying the principle of \
cqt^dity which is the necessary basis of such arrangements between creditors and
debtors ; that by law and by the usage of commerce any preference given by a
compounding debtor to any of his creditors is null and void and that the note

■ought to be recovered ahonld be declared ao. , —

. ■**■" /" ■ ' ^

SUPBiUDn COUUT, 18M,

■m

Nl

X

The Plilntif, in BniiwvrinK »" thti pie*, tttltfred tliat the amount of iho noU
in t|u«aUon wm not oho of tho d«btiV Tor whiob tho 1 )eft)ii<!ttrit .HiiniwunJod, u
mantbned in hi* plos; that »t th« ^sto of Mid note, tho I)t.f«ndiwt, tHwido* his
pmond dob«|y4) tiic I'laintifti, oired thoni £230 4i. 4d., b«ing th« bdMioo
of »n Moount i||| by one Dwirowcm, whom tho Defendant had intn>duood to the
Flaintifrn, and for whom) debt tho Defondalit wa« the j^ariintor ; that whon tho
Defendant applied to I'laintiflh to have their eoonont and aignaturo to the dt^ed
of oompoeition, the J'hiintifl^ made it » (Condition that the bofondant ahould
giro hia note for XI 00 in payment and diachargo of Denroajent' debt, wbioli
Defendant did.

, Tho ovidonoe eNtobliiihflM that In faoi Dtntroeiera owed to IMaintiffii the above
Rinoant if m'Min. 4d.; that when the Defendant applied, for the PUin^ffH'
Hignaturo to the deed of conipoMJtion, thoyJoW him that ImuloH tho amount
mentioned in tho aohedule of the d<ied, ajUfey **»" Defondanfe pefaonal
Indebtedneae, ho owed them for tho »'<«^lo|l|ko">«". "i^ that unleas ho
would give them a jEIOO note, for I'^^MppRrthoy would not aign tho
oompowtion. The Defendant, nays tho v^*^^^|J>l*!<lged hia roitponaibility
for DoaroBioni' dobt, and giivo tho noto ineuttKp^iirthia oauHo. Being oroM-
oxamined, the w^iieaii atatea Uiat he ii nq^t aware of the IMainliflr» having any
writing from the Defendant, except the auid note, for DoaroBiers' deht, and that
the PlaintiffH nerthor t^anHforred over their claim against DcHroaiera to tho
Defendant nor gave him any rocoipt or hcknowledgmcnt of the aettloment of
their claim, ho aa eiUier toidiaohargo DowoBieni or enable the Defendant to
/ rooovOr anything from DiMroeient. ,, r»

lojhtmme, for PlointilTH, contended that it b«Ing proved that the consideration
of the note was not included in tho composition, and, furthermore, that thiV
flonsideration was not the penwnal ihdebtodness of the Defendant, for which
alpno tho composition was entered into, the prineiple invoked by the Defendont
/ oould not rdceivo any application in this ciftisei that the principle of wjuuHty
amongst creditors, parties to a deed of compoHitioH wan incident to and an integral
. p«t of the bankruptey law, where it was in existence ; that the composition
which is in /common usage in Canada was not regulated by tMH|ptienal
prinoiples of hankruptCy, but had no other foundaUqii than the^SLnlaw
principles, which contained no provision to prevent a creditor from making his
condition as favorable as possible ; that the composition >« known «nd practised
m this country was neither the aie^iement ot tixa old French law, nor tho
anuordat under the actual code of ooi&nerco, both of which were and are nothing
more nor less than the mode of settlement between creditors, as it was known to
M when We ha^ a bankrupt law. Under the rules governing the atermoienimt
Md the concordaty the equality between creditors and the prohibition of all
underliand preference, were both equally neoessaiy, aii a portion of the oreditora
oould foroe the compositidn upon the other creditois; but hei« no creditor is
obly>d to accept of any ipangement agreed to by any nnmber of creditors. «aeh
weditor Signs when he is satisfied with the mode of settiement agioed upoii
between himself and his debtor. And even in the case where it would be found

Or*«n«hl«lii

■nioiiUon,

^,<X,.-~'

m

by Uw wmt, that the

the pruiuiplfl or flqiudiiy jBdurrgoveri our 1110& of cii^r

:f'

.Vf,r

, •"*< -

.24?

SUPERIOR COURT, 1859.

Gr«eiuliicldi

VI.

Plunondon.

lion, the violation of that principle could not be set up as a bar to an action like
this by the debtor himself who is particepn in the fraud, if any was practised ;
the other creditors, who have suffered from such fraud, should have theexclnsivc
right of complaining of having been load to compound on an unequal fopting.

Dmitre, for the Defendant, answered that this cause disclosed a kind of tran-
saction which was us commonly practised as it was manifestly fraudulent and
void. ^ The Plaintiffs being applied to by the Defendant to sign a deed of com-
position, and contriving to secure the full amount of their debt, while (he other
creditors would only receive ten shillings in the pound, bring to recollection that
one of their debtors (Desrosiers) had been introduced to them by the Defendant.
Their refusal to sign placing the Defendant at their absolute mercy, the introduc-
tion of Desrosiers, which was probably u simple and ordinary courtesy between
man and man, Resumed the complexion of u positive guaranty by Desrosiers to
pay, and they sliaped the bargain in this way :— Our debt against Desrosiers is
lost and dead ; but if you agree to give life to it and pay it by a £100 note, we
will fiHgn your, cdmpoaition ; if not, we will prevent you from compounding and
keep you in the impossibility of earning an honest living for yourself and your
fiimily. Any creditor striving to make his condition better than that of his
c(W5reditors, will capijy find a motive to explain his harshness with his debtor,—
liis debt is more sacrod than that of his neighbour,— it was crdated under peculiar
circumstances which should either morally justify him to refuse to compound or
entitle him to % preference. In this case, Desrosiers was the pretence- and ihu
evidence establishes that it was even a poor pretence. "The Plaintiffs had no
kind of action against the Defendant for Desrosiers debt; and the note was
understood, between the parties, as such a manifest preference, that when
paid, the amount was an absolute loss for the Defendant, who could never claim
reimbursement from Desrosiers,— while the Plaintiffs remained in possession of
their action against Desrosiers for the fulP amount of their claim. In fact, it Ik
.sufficient to read the Plaintiffs' answer to Ihe plea, to understand fully that the.
note was given to induce the Plaintiffs to sign the composition, and as the price
of their so doing. ,

•^ TSoQ facts being such, it romijins to consider whether a ^urt can maintain an
action like this.

The distinction which exists between our composition and the atermoiementoi
concordat is readiFy admitted to a certain exl^nt ; but it is unquestionable that,
thought tha principle of eqtiality was for a time the subject of discussion in
France, ii^is now admitted both here and in England as , forming part of the
common law, wherever a debtor entered into a composition either in or out of a
court of bankruptcy. If it bad been ati exceptional legislation, co-extant" only
with ft bankrupt law, jbs it is pretended by the Plaintiffs, it would be astonishing
that so many cases should have come to light; because it is almost impossible to
find a badkruptcy law, as remote as it can be s«arohed, without a positive pro-
vision, declaring null and void any preference given to a creditor, party Af ^
composition under such bankrupt law. How then could it be explained that so
m^y attempts would have been carried to the point of iptcin^^ a nnnrf. nf j,iqtic^

,*?.

i

' %;

^ I I I , I.I J... .—...■, . ■,... J..^... T7 ^^ J ^— , -;-

in direct oblivion or cdntempt of a positive provision of the law ? The question '

. .. ■■■-■■-.-.■■..-:• ■■•C,-.-' ■ ■■;■ ^--^ ,/ ■;■■ -^-^ ■*

#

SUPERIOR COURT, 1869.

natnrally arose, as in this cause, under the presumption that the common Uw
being silent on a mutter positiYely settled by the commercial statutory Kw no
rostnction was imposed upon creditors, preventing them from receiving prifer-
enoes from their debtors. ^.

The doctrine upon which the Defendant relies is this :-That all compositions
between debtors and creditors are entered into under the positive, thodfeh tacit
underetanding Jhatthosewhoostensiblyagreotoreceivea^^^^^ of their debt in
full discha,^ thereof; donotin realityieteive thefhole, or more than theotheis-
that the natural inducement for aOirMitor to sign.* composition Ucs on the com-
mon conviction amongst the ei^ftors that it.is necessary for them to saollce a
^ portion of their debt to save the r4t; and by tl^ sacrifice, the debtor is enabled
• to resume his business and to pay the compc^tion. If the principk of equality -
was destroyed, the deed of comjwition wo»ld become the usual mode, foroertaii
creditors^of practising glaring fi^ud,, by means of which they would succeed 4-
gcMjng the payment of their debts.not only from their actual debtor, but imli-^
rectlyfrom their co-creditors. It is a principle of Wh the commercial and
the civiUaw, that when a man becomes bankrupt, m aim^fiture, his property
.8 invested bj^law m Che person of his creditors. The man who applies tfhis
creditors to^btem a composition is manifestly ^ d^canfiture, and if he remain
m possession of his property, it is only asthb representative or the legally an-
pointedagentof his creditors, until they dispo^ of it in one way or anotheV
then, If a wdrtor, by some "nderhand transaction, succeed during that unsettled^
state of things in securing from the common agent of the creditors something '
inore than his ^hare, what he so obtains is in reality taken out of the common
stock of the creditors. Afcw weeksor a few months after this compo8iti<m. the
debtor, exhausted by the satisfaction of the exacting creditors, might be iade
unable to meet the terms of the composition itself, fall into dtmmive again ami
ealjfor mercy; and in the meantime his stock, which had been the common stock
of the creditors, would have decreased by so, much giyen to favoured creditors

There IS no doubt, then, that a contract, having for its object to give a prefer '
enee to^one creditor over the others, is fraudulent towards them, and >hat there
would be no difficulty for the court to declare it null and void if its nullHv wer«
demanded by a creditor. ' i ; ; •'' "^"' \

The only serious difficulty which existed ft)r some time in France in the anpli-
cation of the principle involved in Ais cause, was; with reference to the nulL

k Tt \ T^^' ^"^^ *^' ^**'*°' Wmself ; b^t it is 6ow ttniv^rpaUy settled
that the debtor must be admitted to claim his release from an obfigSfiiS, of & "
kind. First of all, it is a matter of public policy tbat a contract founded upon
traud should receive no sanction from a court of justice

Ancrthe^ cause ofnuUity is found in the commbnlawlripi^^^ '

null all contraotssubscnbedundertheinfluenoeof violeicl orcoerebn,.and4here
are several instances of moral violence, which are assimilated tophysical coereion.
The man who, by misfortune, has been brought intoinsoTvene^, is pUeedinsuch
a state of dependency, as to his creditors; that the moral violence infl.W^ «^

ceived. Thecommottlawafrordshimaprotectionagainsttheobligationsi

Or
PhlMBdM.

#-'

. * ■

\ -

■fkJ

Vv ■ ^.

■-K-

244

SUPERIOR COURT, 1850.

Qreenshields under the influence of that violence, by declaring tfioso obligations null, when
FlMBondpn. they are attempted to be enforced by legal remedy or action.

' For these reasons, and others fully developed in the. authorities that will bo
submitted to the court, the Pefendant is entitled to claim the nullity of the con-
tract or promise contained in the note in this cause. «

■ - ■ ' 'B '

Authorities cited by Defendant's Counsel : — I " " -

Frbnob tAW.— PardesBUB, Pr. Cora., t. 6, p. 294, No. 1238,
Dalioz, Diet. G6n., t. 2, Vo. Pailllte, Nos. 668, 609, 670, 572. \ j

" Jur. du Royaume, An 1827, 2nde partie, p. 148. . .

Boulay — Paty, Failliteset Bahqueroutes, t. 2, Nos. 6'71, 114J.
» , Do Villeheuve, Diet, d"u Cent. Com^ Vo. Faillite, Nos. 1066, 1067, 1068, 1085.

Code de Coin,, Art. 598.
• English LAW.-^Ellia, Li(r of Debtor and Creditor, pp. 202, 204, 206. 1

- 1 l', _,;Jphitty, Com. Law, t. 3, pp. 7l3, 714, 716, 71^, 719, 720. ^_ ; ' ^ \- ^

■^ Atkyns, Rep., t. 1. p. 352. ( ,

' Vesey, Rep., t. 15, p. 65, Saddler vs. Jackson. • - • ^

, 1 , East, Rep., t. 4, p. 371, Leicester TS. Rose. -. fff ' _ .

Durnford k East's Term, Rep., t."2, p. 765, Cocksliott vs. Bennett.
,- ' " " " " " t. 4, p. 166, Jackson vs. Lomaa. '

X:.

Per Curiam. — The not^ in si|it was made and given to the Plaintiffs by the
Defendant when he was insolvent and trying to settle with^his creditors for their
respective claims against him at 10s. in the £. The Plaintiffs at first declined,
because his schedule of liabilities did not show, as they alleged, his entire indebt-
edness to them, exhil^iting only his personal debt, but omitting their claim upon
his guarantee for goods sold by them to one Desrosiers. He. explained tj^'d^tse

^ of omission, by stating that he did not wish to include that in his dch^ral^ of
liabilities, on the face of which he was endeavouring to effect his composition

/Settlement, because his^ offered securities, Messrs. !Desmarteau,'^^Plftmoik4on, &'^
Mousseau, were hot aware of the Plaintiffs' claim against him as security for
Desrosiers ; but ajler several days of negociation between them, and after the
Plaintiffs' positive refusal to accede'tg!,'the composition contract upon any other
terms, they agreed with him tojsign the contract, as upon the face of the sche-
dule, on condition of receiv^ from hitn ihia note for :.£100 in disohwge of
their demand upon the guarantee. The note was^ thereupon given by him and
they signed' the composition conti^p. . His liabilities per schedule amounted to
£5,833 12s. lid., distributed in various sums among thirty creditors, vi^hereof
the Plaintiff appear at the head of the list, and are aniong the earliest in signa-
ture to the coiiti-ac't, followed ^y the largest portion in number and amount of

__fte creditors. \ /_ ^„ ,__.,„— ^-.;— — —-—„-„,._,/_

The composition contract stipulated that his undersigned creditors, in conse-
quence of his having shewn by his schedule that he was unable to meet his engage-
ments in full, agreed and consented to settle tpithi him for 10«. in the £ on their -
retpective clain^, pay&ble by his notes at 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 months; with
interest, and siecured by the indorsement of Messrs: Desmarteaii, &c. Beforf;^
adverting to the facts of record and the authorities of law applicable to the case,

■ilurill-bfi^coaveBienLto atato itklimineaoiae generally. receiaM

ing upon the matter, namely, that a debtor in failing circumstad^to, en cUponJiture,

a

/

'It

■ ih^4M*v

:;:_;(^"'^v..:..W^-|;

Vh-

r . V

"SUP^I^B COURT, 18fi».

i-A'.-

245

OrenuhliUf
PUnondra.

* t

*■"

can make no change in the rights of hiaoreditoWas they wew at the time of his
insolvency nor can he give any preference to nor secure the debt of one to the
prejudieeof others of them, Toubbau says, ««/«»«*«< ;rtte«rf.V efe <f«w'« ; that
a contract wiU b^deemed in fraud of creditors wTien the o^gee knew the failing
circumseanoes of the obligor debtor and derived any preference or advantage by
the obligation ; that such a contract is contrary to law as being opposed toeood
morals and public order, and cannot be enforced for the benefit of oreditorsS
more than for the direct personal advantage of either of the parties; that no
actaoncan be enforced upon an obligati(||| without a cause or 3th afalito or
un awful one, whoever may demani^it; that courts wiU not lend their aid to
settle disputes and transactions which are ^plobated and forbidden by law but
wi 1 notice^e^^cio the illegality of the subject and 4\m it to be Wijed
fr wjftout ani pka and at any stage of the prooeediflg. T^e principles^cS
, from our oi^n law are common to thejurisprudenoe of aU comm»ciaI countries
where honesty and fgir dealing prevail in oommereial pursuits, and are to be
. found .»«?«»«, in the sister jurisprudenceof Louisiana. Reverting now to the
fects of tM case we have a debtor in a%ti^ of declared insolvency, evinced by
the Plamt^s and his other creditors treating with him and accepting his offered
composxtion of 10s. in the ^- a verbid gtiar^tee without' the sLtory r^ui^
ment to gm it a legally binding effect; a colealment of the guarantee iteelf as
well as of the alleged indebtedness thereby frem ifl creditors and parties inter-
Sy T i ! composition contract; a private agreement between Plaintil6a«d
l>efendant for his discharge by means of the notojfe question from a demand^
not enfoifceable at law, and an advantage there#obtained by the Plaintiffs'^
8ecunng^yment 6f this inojwrative portion of their c^m; a promissory note
without ^nsideration ; a consent by the Plaintife of and their subscription to the
composition contract. The note is'dated 11th of Dece^a>er, 1864, the contract
Dtto January, 1865^ and the note Btoame due only after.Jhe instahnents of the
ocmposition had all matured and been liqiidiited. AfteMWs statement frem
the record, the law of the base appears in the &%wingauthori^ •- ^ , ^

Mr.Justice Stoiy, in Sec. 378-9 of his Eqi^ty Jurisprudent tht& sums up
the matter :-'« Th^re are other cases of construkve Aaud upon creditors, whiiJh
the whole moral justice of the law ^ equaHy discredited and deno«oed. We
refer ^ that not infrequent class of oases, in which, upon tlte failure or insolvency
ot.their debtor, some creditors have, by secret Compromises, obtained undue ad- ;/
vantages, and thus decoyed other innocent and unsuspecting creditontShW signing
..5???« Mcpmpositioa wWch th<gE.«ippoa^ b?ai8 of enfire ".

equahty and reciprocity among the creditors^ Jhen, in fact, therewas a-designed t
or MtUal imposition upon aU but, the favoured^!. The purport of a compdidti'on ■
deed, m cases of insolvency, is that the property Wthe debtor shall be assigned
collected, and distributed among the oreditorf acADrding to the oider and terms
prescribed in the deed itself, and, inconsideratlm of the assignment, fl» ciediters
parties generally agi^ to release aU their dats\beyond what the funds. #ill
satisfy. Now, it j^obvioiw "' ■ • •• - \ —

)

^^^

x^TOHff^BOTvpw^^St

r-f-rT-; -^i-;*^ j^^v»yuufl Mimi m an irangaoMonfl y^itoiHwrt,Hihe
\ mm IS required, ahd the very ciroumstance that other or^itors of

tatipn and standing have already become parties io\e deed, will operate mIi

known r«pu-

#

"^"X

246

yf'

/

., HCPEUiqit C0UR1\ 1850.

UrMUBhloias

n,
Plunondon.

strong iiuluiouiciiilf to others to^t iu the .simio^wuy. But if the >%n,iturca of
suflh prior troJito^ liavo bc^)rwuro(l by secret airangcmcnt with thciii, moro
favourable to theni thuntMsclieriil terms of the comiwmtiou deed wur^raut, thok^
(creditors act a.s detoyllueks upon the rest." »ec. UTJ). In modern tiuicB, the
doctrine lius been a|t^d upon in Courts of Luw us it has long l^on in Courts of
Equity, tlmt sucIilt^npcmcKts are utterly void and ought not to be cnforcc.1 *"
against the a.s.senting dcbtqr, or his sureties or his friends. There i.s gieat wisdom
and deep [Hjlicy in the doctrino/and it is found in the best of aljprotcetivc policy
that it acts by way of precaution rather than by m^cre rcniediiU justice, fw it has
a strong tendency to repress all fiaudsjhpon the general creditors by making the
cunning contrivers-.thdvietiiiis of their own. illicit and clandestine agrcemonts.
The relief is g|anted not. for' the sake of the debtor, for no deceit oVopprcssioii
may have l|cn -pBaetiscd vjton him, but for the 'sake of honest, humane, and. »
unsuspecCinV creditor, and Jieiice the relief is^'ratited equally, whether tlie debtor
has been induced to agree to the secret bargain by the threats or .oppression of
the favoured creditor, or whether hfr has bcen„a mere volunteci^ offering his ser-
vices and aiding in the int^>nded deception. Such' secret barjains are not only
<tcomed incapable of being enfprced' or confirmed but even money paid under
them is recoverable back, as it h'^s been obtaihod against the cfcar principles of
public policy. And it IfSvholly jnnnaterial whether such secret bai^ains give to
the favoured creditor a laager sum or an additional security or advantage, onmhj '^
inisreptTnent some hnputtanf /,t<-f,fov the effect on tjie other creditors is precisely
the same in each of these case^<.»' They arc misled into an act to which they ipight
not otherwise havciiji^sehtcd." Similar opinions will be found in Addison on
Contracts, page 13Uytand Stoi7 on Contracts; Sec. 326. The adjudged casesfully '
bear out the ■ t||trwr4lcrs. They ate briefly summed up in Byles on Bills :--^
•' The eonsideralon or contract onja Ijill or noto must not be in fraud either oiP"
the Defendant or third l)8j:^ns, foi? fraud totally avoids all contracts both in law
and^quity. ■■ ' Equally- uli5ivailii|ig is the instrument if it were given in fraud
of third persons. " " An insolvenjt proposed to compound with his creditors, but
the Plain^tiib being.ercditors, rofidscd to execute the deed of composition unlessi
tfic inrifnvent gave them a pron^issory 'note for the residue of the debt due to
th^. He did so without the knowledge of the other creditors, and the Plain-
tiffin and othei-s signed the decj:l. The noteVas held void as a fi-aud on the other
creditors." Cites Cockshott vs. tiennett, 2 T, R. 763 ; Knight vs. Hunt, 5 Bing.
432, and others. " So the notte is equally; void if given not by the insolvent but
by a third person." " So 1;he jaoUi being given with a fraudulent intention, would
have been void, though the coinposition had ncvei; been effectH." Wells vs. Girling, '
1B.AB,M7, "and any bettei'fieeuFity than the<ytiier creditors have, though for
. the same amoiutt, if taken without their knowledge, is void as a fraud on them.','
^ ~ Leicester vs. Rose, 4 East, ^2;.- In |hc leacjing case of Cocksliott vs. Bennett, >
V„ ■ Lord Kenyon. Chief Justii^, observes : — " On grounds of law, thQ.sdcurity taken

to give thiiinote was a fnyud on thc'creditora, partite to the coniraot, in which
*• their debt;wa6,L^, ^ cancylled in consideration of receiving a cotnJjMsitioHs Thi?
^ * agreement between Plait) tiff .and Defendant prevented their being put in that
, . ■ -Jp :^, .«(ittiation which was the inducement to the othe]|,cteditbr^ to si&ri the deed mi ^^

■■^^•■"^^•■■|''' -'i/' i ..■-. ■ ■■. '■' ■*: , . .« -

•m^'t'

'■■m

1 . •

''%'*^

f UrEI^GR COrilT, 1859.

a«7

'*_

to relinquish part of tfiejir deinolridfi, thereby rendcriug abortive all that theoredi-
torB intended to do for the bairikrtlpt by compoui}ding for their dobta : the tran-
saction is boWmed in fi»|^d^ which is a Ijpecics of immorality, and not being
available, a« tkfk. cannot be revived by Bitch promiscf" BuUer, ,j^, said,' " the
, Defendant wAs abscjldtcly in Uie power of tho PlaintiffH^hen.tho note waJgiven,"^
and thej? tcx/k advantage of hisdiHtresH^d situation : if the riot6 had been obtained
by actual mimpulsii)^, it would b6.vOid— now this is equivdcnt." See, fflso Anstr.
910, 1 A^. 352^ gbicf Justi<>e ^c^, 4 ^ast. 371 , 6 Scott, A\m^t VH.-Spalding,
U,Ad. apd E, 11. 1033, 1 Stark 529. " So if a man becomes >urety for another

• . for the price of good.", as by joining with him on a joint and sevdhd note, and Uic
• party t^ wliom the nuroty is rospoif^le conceahj fi«m him a ^pulation for an

■; ^ditional sum which .itissecrctly /agreed bciween himself and the principal that

the latter shall pay in li«iuidation «f an old'acbt, that is a fraud on tho surety;'

&o. Pidcock vs. Bishop,^ B. and^|C. «05. '' Sole cmipounding cmlitor ct^mt

• split htg ifcmmil<auI.iom2muHdmrjmrf,und^^^^ me for the reaidnv '
unless lie rnqmiut* the other efeOjltors wlthJ^itijproceidMg. See 1 Esp. 131, 2
Holmcr vk/ Vienor4-case of two^^ims, one foi- goods sold the other W two bills— s
5 Bing. 460, Britton vs. Hughe^ 4eld, (fa o-edUor Ic^p b,ick a portion o/thi- ■ ' '
<ie6< dne to him, and do^ not pormihj state the amount o/ hi« cluim in the vont- '

- position deed, his conduri is fra\^dulcnt,jmd he willmt le alhwed to am the '
debtor fur the delft omittal See ^ Y. and *. 2^, Colcftian vs. WaUer, 4 B. Wd' /
C. 511, Lewis vs. JonesV The iiame principle, runs uniformiy through all the .■^ -
cases, from Cockshotl vs. Benkj^if 1788 to very recent days. " All creditors
..ajQ presumed t» bargain for ecf^iif of benefit and mntuaUty of security ; they
are not'fajriy or honestly dealt by if i»ny of them bargains for or receives better
terms than others, or mates hia position or claim bettlir than it was at the'debtor's
insolvency." "The question (s not alone whether the composition was entered
mto or not ; but whether the transaction .jras mq^nfas a fraud upon the other ^
creditors, where a Creditor ;^hdertak^ td, reptesent that he had agreed to take'
IDs., and secures more in fak." In the/ Revue do- Legislation, 2 vol., p: '?7, a ' -
caiie at Quebec is reported i^ follows :— ' A promissory note to^ creditor fori©^
balancfeof hKclaim in consideration of l^is^ing ^igned a de^S of compqsitionSir
IB void» Blackwood vs. Ohynic^isOQ, Nf. <^ Waining thi autbqrities cited
above.' The French law.iauot at variai^ with ttie English law ii this matter. ♦
Pard^us observes :^«*Li^boniie foi qu ne peni^^as qu'upepersonne 9'enri
".chisBc aux d^pims d'«ni autre, et qui comman^e VmHih dans 1^' nigocia- * '
« tions inHeressie*, veut >'a6cdn des jbohtractank neXse cptendre ^mkc ' ' '
- des faite contraires 4 1% v^rit"6 pour l|fe decider i prendre ftno resolutiolR'ir
;• n aiirait pas prise'sans^^fe > Ellir-W permet ias- dWantaglV^disBimite-^
« nen de ce qu'jl iraportWacti dernier /de savoir, Ibrsque cetto connaissance I'au, .
"rait naturellement emp^ch^ do conclure le mardi* ou lorequ'il en attiait con-
'* septi certaines conditions dans iWoranCe des choses dissimnl^efl et dans la "' ~
" wpposiliW de la.verit^ tie ce quW lui a dit 01^ laiss* croire." The bankrupt-
iyatem of France prevents cases of- this kind confing. ordinarily before the com-
mon law tribunals, nti^rrkfiimmts hfmg npecially roguh ~^

GreeBiliMtf«
ft

PUmondo

't

«; %\

Jft

4'

-•t'.

Jti^:.

k.a'

1'

f flnenjhid^ of the county.

StypERIOR cot

HT, 18M.

Jl.

f • u 11 1. ^ -'TO " **""* principle of common honMy and equal good '
faith. wh\iih, lb the-^xtual provision of the A«cle of the Cu.tom, places
unpnvileged creaitbw of f hp#.«olvent npMytie name equal footing in hj|
of piiynfcnt, *l8dti prevails in all the co% in matters of contracts. At
refemngjto P«rd*|i|^%^o. 1288, the poJnt||put strongly in support of De
dant'e pH and a^M?* «t No. 122fip."Nola*on. fait con^ltre fliHsO
tions |6^1|9 en v^tti de8queU|i certaV)S ai&dtaient f|Hpp4de niMt«. , I
09»mf)^ que l4^le8 aulrll actea 8oieiI»e)«hIe« #|||n drJ
" ***''^**^1?'' r«*«nfl' Prin^PO que ce rkx «Mponna fM|t fraud*
" "*?!«*Ml^« *<»«W>6- Rejot, 8 fSv^er ^^. 29.1|P. et ceVrinci

Ii<ju6 tf^nfeulement par le^ tkibufiaux de coni^o l|kJ^#ln
!«?mp«t«w oi^r l|yriburiaiii; ^1, dans#kut|i|p<ei5^^ S

iid«)

i^M

*

f que^soij! la date de I'acte,
1^ pr^som^llll, fond^^ ^r la
bi

lie

■»»/ fraud, pr«sumptR>n8 <foai*

itrflict, its date, character, and

thb act<iatta^'e$t{ntif^ de

k 'fi itidmni pair oelui qut^s/ifit

r^,p9tenuak'graiuit;' in fadt, f^'^--

, que eoiitraiefei'l'unoj

P*)thiefS|efine», "la cAuse cle. I'enc

ere

, ® ^ j P*^ft«fp*t ce que I'w^^
gage %Iuidofl|^^1eri8^e:t<ont die sechk^ and whicti thtf

(Mitoei^^lythe iaj%»^r(ji8 :^ rCbnsideralion meaos ^mi^M
H^km^yAin^m the eyjaof th* l<|Wi(noving from the Plainiiff.^ It w_
gfit'f* tbe^effndant oi^ s6niy*d|trimeni to the Pi«intiff ; but at M
««eiil^^f%^ moving from the'tlaintjlfiiii ^A good and sufficient conside^
wtJWWiWntiH lc( the validity o^^ny si^ri^ <»ntraet;and the agreement or
8ome'tt|s^^auin^et«ofmu8tl)iem writln^^^lthput these the kw supplies
no mtiins nor affordf any remedy toi tomptfl ^^<»mi»tic«}.'' ' ^ Using tKe language.
^^iS ^'*^*'-!^'? H^Iman vs. J^h^son, Gowp. 343 : "The objection that ».
"^v^^ 1^1*°^°' -"**"'• ■* ^t'l'^enthe Plaintiff and Defendant, 80uticl«>
ats^ll ttm^ Terjr jll in theonoith of the Defendant, It is not for ^is sake h^^^^
.eV*tB^^hed|)j«cti6n^ > ever i^lpwed; but it is ifbnndyd on general princSpl^'
of p«lieyj^^|c^ the Defepdaht has the advantage (of, conltrary to the real yu^^
as t>eiw^en|»m a«d jthe Plaintiff,— by' accident if I may so say. The priiidple
of puWc.j^itgf is, tx dolo mala mm oritur actio. No court will lend jts af^ t<>
a •natfStt^^foundVhis cause of action upon an imm6ral or In illegal act/ K
from th^Iaintiffs'own stating or otherwise, the catfase-^f actijpn appear to'i
«e /tmtf^tMd or a transgression of a ppsitiv^law, there th)«9tourt says %^
BO/ight to be assisted, ^t fi upon that grouncCthejcourt go^, nPt for t
the Defen^aqtj b^t because they^gju not lend their aid to sue
lere is not in this case, the afw^JCTl'"" between the parties w
istof the cale oCHolman vs. Joh4P|iht,a8 observed by Lord Ell
aiBomewJiat similMLcasetpthe present, "Oppression^ bn6 side an
on\|he' other :, it cjMt never tw predicated »8 par delictum when one

-yr

L-

■f

) / ,.

-< .

M

..•5..-*^'

«.

/■■.:

SUPERIOR COURT, I860.

840

rod ,nd tbo other b<iw. to it." Smith y». Cuff, 6 M. and S. 160. Under .11 Or^«htaUU
4hei« c.ro|ira8t«ncet, the action is dismiuscd with co8t«." v> ' PUnSUn.

f.^fi'.'Za/amm., for Plaintiff,. » ' . A:ctioi, dismifaed.

I^u^eife />aou««, for Defendant. '.

!■ ;v

It,-'

.1

* UONtBBAL, 81 MAI 1889.

Cpram Badolky, J.
/ No. 941.
^Hand et al. vs. Loranger': f'

tlTTBB DB OARANTHI— blSCDSSIok I. 1 ^ '

|>. Que li oMtion n'est pM tenuo de payor le. fhtt. de U dtacuMiou du d6bitour prinoipri. ,

'♦arleur declaration lesDemandcurs all Vaient: "Que le 12 juillet 1861
le d.t D^fondeur s'obligea ei,yer8 le dit Gabriel Lenoir dJt Rolland un dcs diul
Demandeurs alors en;8oci6t6 avec I'autre Demandeu^ et fai.ant 'fcoihmercc
. ensemble .en la cit6 de Montreal dit district sous la raison sociale de " Rolland
et Lapierre, et ce longtemps auparavant; i payer le cuir quo leHommfi Pierre
ChryscJogue Dugal laetalorsde laditeoit6, cordonnier; prendrait cejour-14 che«
le dit Gabnel Lpnoir dit Rolland, savoir : au magasin des dits De^andeuiB en

• Tp/Jr' "'/^.""r^'f-k <1« •«<>. « le dit Dugal ne payatt point au temp.

de 1 6ch6an9o du d61ai que le dit Gabriel Lenoir dit Rolland devait lui donner, tel

que le tout appert k I'Acrit aloiB dress^ par le dit Dfifendeur et par lui siirni et

. remui au dit Dugal, qui \k etalors le remit au ditGabriel Lenoir dit Rolland. (1)

^ Que sur la foi^du dit 6crit et sur le cautionnement ainsi donn* par le dU

?jtl *n' 1,l^^r'"l""^^^ '^">'»« •'«^'*' o-^'^^ncA et

Tendu, et l,vr6 14 e^, alors aff'Mit %al du cMr au montant de £16 3s. 9*d. et

que «.ns le dit 6crk, ils n'auraient jamais avanc6 ni livr6 ce cuir au dit Kerre

Chnrso logue Dugal ^ui 6tait alor. notoiwment ibsolvable et en d4confiture.

^^QueleditDAfendeuf connai8«»nt bien tout ce que ci-de«iu8,a nfianmoins

tou,oa« n*gl,g6 et refaW de payer aux dit. Demandeurs quoique de ce «>u.eut

requi. I. jommo de m, moptant de «,n dit^cautionnement en autant que le

ni n i^'T**?i!^^«^ "^S^f Busdit et a laissd poursuivre '

des frais con.,d*r||ii. po^r paryenij 4 la d scussion du di^Dugfl, ^^ A L
pleme oennaissanei ,4 ^ I . , X^ k* ^ '^ * ♦■

. - V : — -.

fa ,

■^

', Vi*«-

w.

^^^ Sfef "" ^**'* '^^'^'^ ''°'"«"' """= " MonW lii" jufllet, 1861. ' Je m'obU«i

v:,^.

A_

V

♦ ^ .

2ffO

COUR SUPEMKUIIE, IMO.

r r

Quo le (lit Dugal a ii& diMiiti taivant la loi, pouib6tablir «on iniolrabiKU tt
CO &^la rdquisition mfinoo du dit PAfondour qui a toUjouni promis de payer le
ihontant do ion dit oauttdnMenient «nwit6t I'insoiyabilitA dn dit Dugal consta-
tie, mais a toujuura ndanmoinii n6glig6 do co fairo qnoiqno do co«ouvent requit. "

Et leif ditB Deinandeurn alWgocnt «n outro : que le 12 jnillct Wfll, en la
ditocit^ de Mdntr6al, le nomin6 JPierre Chrynologue Dugal ]k et nlors cordon-
nien do In dito df6 ci mitintonant de la paroisno do Ste. Anne d'Yainachioh«,
dans J« dJRtrict doH TroisRivii^ros 6tait ondott6 envera les dita Benmn^oura 14
ol alors associis sous la rftison sociule de '' Holland et Lapicrrc" et-faiwint
commerce comme tola en la dite citd, en la Hommo do £lfi 3h. OJ^d. montant
du compio d6taill6 ci<annex6 pour le prix et .valour de divcm effet« et nmrftban* ''
discs vendus et liyrfis lo 14 juillet 186l en In cit6 dc Montr6al, dans lo district
do Montreal, yhr Ics Demandcurs ]k et alor* comrncr^aTrtsidc cnir ot associds et;
la/itto fit6 et y Taiaant .commerce sous la raison 'iociale do ^'Roilnnd et
piorre" audit Pierre Chr;^8ologu0 Dugal & sa demands et requisition, et
pour autant que Ie» dits IJhemandeurs m6ritcnt nvoif du dit Pierre Chrysologue
"Dugal pour lo prix ot valour «!cs dites niHrtjIinndiHes vendues et livr^os comme
suadit, et -jpour autAnt quo lo dit Pierro Chrysologuo^ Dugal a Souv^kit reconnu
lenr devoir et promis leur payer ti dcmandc. '

Los Demandeurs d6c!arent : que ^ette rente et livraison eutont aitisl lieu dn
autant quo le dit D^fendour par un Ifcrit ant6riour -en date du 12 do juilfei
1851, s'obligca et 80 porta bien duement caution du dit Pierro Cbrysolbgue
Dugal et soi. fit fort ct s'obiigoa de .payer pour et u Facquit do co (Jqiniori ^
d^faut p<ir4ui de ce (aire dans le d61ai qu>serait l^et alors donn6 au di^'Du^l,
aux dita Demandeurs la dette qu'il aurait pu contractor vi»4-vis do ce» ^orniers
et ce jusqu'au montant*de |60 6galo 4 "cello d« Xl5 courant, suivant qu'il
appert & I'ficrit produtt on cetto cause et sign6 commo suit ; " T. J J. Loranger "
par le D^fcndeur lui'm^tq^.

Quo discussion dcs bions du dit Pierre Chry^Bologue Dugalayam 6t6 legaUi^l"^,
ment faito en vortu du jugement rendu conlro<^lni lo 15 septembne 18d4, on la
CouT do Circuit dans et pour le distrl^ct do Montreal, en favour deldits Deman-
deurs, snr la poursuite par eux faito cdtitre le dit Dugal, aux fins de recouvror et
pcrcevoir le paicmcnt de la susdite cr^^ance, il nc s'est trouvo aucuna meu-
bles ni effets d'uno valour sufflsante pou^ eifectuen le paiemont ^e la snsdite
cr^anoe, pas m6me pour fairo face aux fr'ais d'ex^ciition, suivant que lo' 'tout
appert aux retonrs. dcs writs d'execution dm^^^ en 4n„dite c^usc, et lesquels\
retoura sont annexes aux susdits Writs oti Br^^ d'oxi&cutio'n, doni et du tout \
copies sont produitcs avfc losprSsontes pour on f^iro partio.
Qnedepuis le 12 juillct 1851 lodit Dugal est inftojvablo e\ end^contitur^
Que les frais tax6s sur Ic dit jugement sont do £4 9s. 9d. ot Ifs frais sube^
quents encourus sur I'^mgnation des Writs do Saisie-Ekj^cution contre les btenB-
meubles da dit Dugal et fn misc en force d'iceux 8ont^''£2 lis. 8d. courant,
formant en tout la wmmo do £7 Is. 5d. courant,' qu^jointc i £15 forme
£22 Is. 5d. courant. ' " \ „ ..

,>v Que partant le dit D6foBdcur qui fut bien et doement db^ifid de-tout ce qu%
"ci-dessiiH fit qui en eat pleine at anti^re connaiaaancft ot A grirdemt^ndo do pa'-

\.

\

■)

^i^l

'" •• i *i' I I II 1 1 '^"^

m

Unt.vo,rd*iditD*fendour; etpour lo r^ouvroa.««t de la^I ^J.^^^^^^^^^
fond .A B. pourvoir .u justice centre c. <r«,aior qui . «,uvent Joi^l t,
devoi €t promm la lour payer, c, ,t«:il n^^lig, et refuse maintolnt Je Wre
quoique de ce Bouvent rcquis. • ® ™"

.LoD6fo„de,.rHyantpIaidi&A ce% ictiK par un« d6fenii^ iu Vond. In f.i^
et a cont««tat,on 6t.nt Ii6e, le, parties pr<H.«drrent * leUr preuve *"

Lo D6fend9ur ayijnt 6(6 e,5amin6 sur faiU et' articles, au llo inf^'r.^ . •

.«r ma r^ponso qu'il a 6t6 pourauivi An ,T, w.* "^ *'* ^^^^^ *'*''*

,.mt : N'est-il paslai que derurr2 eUe U j urLTn"* TT "

poursuivi par les dfts Demandeum associ^s comme uld t ^Z 1 ^^ * *'*

ricm, et qu'il a etc discutd suivant iTb iet JTZ ' . ?•'/ ''''' '"''?«"»-

'Ut6e» , LelJ6fendeurr6pondi. ceilolr;:a^^^^^ '""''^*'- " *** ^«"'- '

B fut prouv6 que Gabriel Lenoir dit RolJand na fai«.f «^-^ j ^
B*par6 4e celui de leur soci6t6 . la dateltlt::, r^^^^^
♦ La/reriUye, pour les Demandoure, cita Tes autorit68 8ut««*i.. ^. u..
cette lettre de g.ra«tie quoiqu' "adre»6e 4 u7^ Z ^ r?'**^''''^**.

^ia* copmercialede l2,l Jd et I^ptrre un drtV^tidr'^^ '°"""* ' '* ^
Smith's Me«,antileLaw. p. 68. 4 B. & C.r4!3 ^A r,6V"/r"'^'"''*- -
Loranger^ pour le D^fepdeur pr6tendit J^l^J^]^^'^': '''l ^
i opposor J^ cette rdclamation, si^le eut L ZtZZ2^ZT"'f"''
que consiquemra^ent la demande faite au nom d'uie s^lt , T/ ' '''

n'ayaitpas co„tract6. 1q prfvait de codroit. * "'**' '**!"«"« ''

Cotte proposition n*ava1fe. pais 6t8 86ul6v6e nfti. 1« ^Afe , ,

Pi!R PfTDT* mr . A J , '. • """'evec par la defense au fonds en fait

6taient dcmand6s au m^^i^t^fJ^Tl P"»,.«<>°!«'«rce 86par6. Les effets
ontr^s dans leurs comptT U t^^^^^^^^ "^ ^^-"'

ment, maia d'apr6s ee%i I»»ralt g^n^fr^nt 6 retlte^ "*"'«*«-

m^me dan* absence d^unipreuv: positri 1 il, r "1 V'"^'^ ''
Mre prise fot^^U contra 1< donnerde la Tt^ Po "t, hntcrp,«tation doit .
^ D6fendeur i^er le moniaiflu Zln!«™ f ^' ^ ^**"' * condaino6 la,
de la diteussiJn de Btug^Kurmett ?'" -1 * "'^ ^''''^'^*' '«»*««

vs.

fxraogan

^^iT^Hand one of the

^.f

i

h.^:

. 4

1,

K vS

COUR SUrSRIEUEB; 18«0.

MidJibwM

Ann of th« PlaintlffB, (h« Mid flrm «tlsUng •t t^ ltin# when (fi« mM gMnnnim
WM carried into effoot and aoc«)ptod, inured to the benefit of tike Mid I'laiutifBl
Go-partnera aforesaid, the aaid '''^Z^y|Mtt|lji"<l '^ thep knd there fl«t
.•Bgagod in trade ■eparately/oonjiilllBBPWiant to pay td the PlalntiA^
the turn of JB16 amount of m^PPIMP^P^ interest thereon from the 29th
day of Januttpy I860, until aAufpiijf^nt, and ooets of Circuit Court."

La/renape et Jhpim, wovimie* Dtitatadtan, , ' * * ^ *?

I\>minviUe, avocat du D6fendoar. » ^ ' '

»*

Frothingha

Heia thkt kbMQl ^
propmrty witkl»tli*

;. C»ram Birth
. Ko no.

Tk« Broekvitl* and Ottava
JHekinton ei'aL, Oami*h$u>

'mTIE OtrillNDAHTB— JURiapiOTION

'0^t '^'•'

ilwajf Compauj/ and

"A.-

ho h*v« had noyjomlcilnin Lower CMada,iniwt iMMtMrMklorpenoiua
Bt w)ien) the null i« lnitltutc«i to t1v«JarlMlletlon to the Court. andtlMl
propel^ o«,ttia defmdmult* within the dutrtot of Quebec, held by A. r«ild«nt witiHn th« Diitrid
§r MontreV.t» not pr6p«rtj ej|lio defendants within tJie Diitrict of MonlwiU.

ThJB was » S^eia Arretieforejudgementsued out h^ the plaintiffs against the -
"defendants, who w*re ■! Foreign. Corporation, upon a judgment renderwl JL
against theuTin Upper Canada. 'Mc '-J^ ' ' ' -' ■ ^^

■ '^® *"*'**!!fil'"' '"''^•*"**<k undef authority of thfl Wth e\$m of the /ndlcatve
act of J840, Wbich permita ef peradns who have no domicile in Lower Canada,
but who have pergonal ^or reaWbtate" wilhin thosame, being ijnpleaded in the
Superior or Circuit Court, in the J)i8tri«t or Clicuit,^ where such propertv mar
^ be situated. • '\ - ;

; * The writ w« Mrvfid in Upp«r Cai,ida, ufon thljOefendanis ittheir donSioiVe

in Upper piinida, uiwiet theJfolW^iw^ke*^ 68th jiedlofi of,the Act amending

the Judicature Acts 3find Vjc, dK &. "'#"'":;"' -^ ■ ' m '

The Defendants appeared and f^ a declinatory exceptioi); atad iti ezcepMoh

d to^OTBie; whereby they reprealntHHiat they had "no doinlcilei in"LowW

Canada— tbatjhe debt sued for, w«piWpiitracied in^wr Cana^anff lh»^;

^^^hey bad no pemonitl or real propertylfc Lower CaqiidakA ^* ". • •^■■jjf :' %

It AppcMwd in evidence, that though the DefendanULbgfeio proprt*y in fte -^f

District of Montreal', yW they lia^. persotfST propej^ iiJi|ftDSlrict of 9uebe<j,' **»

^ich however wai'ittihe custody o|rije8gen|iH| of ^«a^ Dickin- w*^

*tt, and that Dtcklnsoi^. r^i^eii in tfee' District «K]tM|. . , " . ' , ^ ,, >. '

Itwasclaiiii|i^;^4e i*laiotJ£fii Aal5,jlhe resSlM ^icHnson wkiVtfc^^^ *

astric^t,|yioQtr«ll,a)id the holding by him of' property of the Deifendanta :,

.thoughPwas^tuate in th* District of Qui6bt<v gave Jurisdiction tp thp Court ^

' r*;^**f •■"^'ft^''* Cour?m8in*ained the Exceptions, and <iisp»i*is«d the actioa
with costs. • «., " ''' . ,.;r^. ,.'..> !'■> .',-

^" Jte <fc^forl4dntifli: ' ' "'^ " '^ ^"'''" di.mi.«;d. , •
ymyTwrf Arffttit, fnrdffrndanti.ii ■ ^ v

i»«»»«>i,.

:,#

•«„ ~

■■■« i-i>

,. -R'

•npsfr

lUPERIOR COURT, mi

MONTRIAL, son JDWB, lt89.
''^ Coram BiHrniLOT, J. ^

No. lai. ^

^Jt^ ■ ^*"'''"''' "■ ^^'"^"" * ^'*''*'' »"»• "«ning party. ^

four If' ""r. *"*;«" «f ttevondicaUoB in.titutod by the PUInUff ^

. ^* Jntorvenh^ party by hi, interventiou clalmid ih.t i, I*. "^i ' '
horw, of th« Defendant in cood fi^r «M • r . ^* '""^ purciaaed the

ine i-laintjff fllfed anawon to the jntervonUoa^ Th« ,„«» • " '

■»»'. .h.o jofaL™ WU.. !"".«:„' ''°''" •" P"*' " «■« •"«<>". or do

PJalntiflfl • .

Wi*^ fer IflterveniDg party.

Motiten disfflSiNd.

i

"^ #

«'

CIRCUIT COURT.

MONTREAL, 14 JULY, 1889.

^m a 0. Monk, J

* No 2341. . ,

Bedard vs Dorion.

^r

♦-

i^-uL^ ^0"-i^«».-^ATUT 18 1^. Cap. 108.

» d.tor in I„ „.i iSj. 4 L ' jH™, !»•"••"')««»», pour oi»n .„.

d. «38o. „o„, iL..„,. Ir^'* "" ^"""^g"- "'pouv^-tt •

QB tm pQgi'<aoifr:

lidtreeatiin^flimoina

^P>

^M[at.

•i

V--"

ou ''"•"><«e«iTrc5ir8ou8'leaprovi,^r

l^':,.

204

COUH i>E ClltCUIT» VU9.

•Ifili L« Ddruixlutir il6<liiM !• corop/)t«n('« «lii tribunwl pir KjKtjttion DkUnalHihi,

'^>mm., «t pro|H>M« tli'iix iiuiyoiM; Id. \a\ iiioinnnt r^cUin^^ |mr I'ltntion nxct^ilo k Juri*'

diuiiun (lu triliiiniil. 2u I<h Ii)yuntti|iitl6 nu biiil Axctul* X.'iO.
^ A l*HUiliiiun Rtji fkiMMHt (|iie I'mciIoi) ««t portAo anr lo pKrA){r»pli« 0 iln I* fi«

clauHo do Im 18ni«> Vkit. <th. lOlt. qui «liinna Uilb notion jH>ut rttoHvrtr le$ doiu-
iiMi/n firovenunt d'uM violutum iVunt eoitventiim d» bait ; il «*t rn<liflfi6ront <\\i,
l« bail Koit oxpir6 on nun, In loi m fai'^'tnt pnN lelle diatinotion, «t Ik Dttmnn-
. (IvreMto »o trouvant (Intm Wn Unnm ti([tti>» do cuttu tol, en puunuivmit fumr n
touvrtr ht domtnai/jti pruvtnnnt <r««« tnohlioH tPunt convtnUon dr bail. Ki:
outre la clHiiit« 8 porniil k la coiir itmtfmh-t ft dicidtr toittei lt$ cau$et origi-
nant en vertu dn priaent aet«, ou det rrlaliom de locateur et l«iedtaire,d:e. Quant
ail niontnnt r6ii:luiii6t il mm di-t«rmino pao In jurlMUctiondo latiour, mniR, d'Hpr^N
In clauHW 8, cV«t la valiur amnuel/eou loijrr d« la propriiU qui riul* cotto jurii-
diction; \q moi annntllt ■'MppUquttft/My^toutnuiMi bion q(i^& mltur, et uetlo
interprfctHtlon etit confirmfo pni lo texto anglain, <rtinua/ valmor rent, ot par U
dtrn^re partio do lu olauRo qucli/ue jnUut-ltrt It montant de$ damnuiffet et dti
lo^er rielamii.

Dorim argtin quo faction no ponvait dim intent^o en vortu da atatut qaV

y jdigniint uno demnnde «n rctciaion ; il r^auito do ronaomMv du atatut, que U

l^gialHteur a ilabli un tribunnl oxcoptionnol pour reacindcr lea baux en'ccrtaiiu

caa, niais a perinia do d<>mandor Ic muntnnt du ioyor en ni6mo tompa quo la ro«-

"'. ciaion. D'ailieum lo biiil est expir6, loa rdlationa do locatour ot locatHiro n'cxia-

tent plus cntro loa partiea, ct Jn Deii^andoroaao dovait »o pourvoir devant les

tribunaux ordinnirea, comme il a 6t6 jug6 dana la ciiuao do " Cloao va Cloao," 3

L, C. Jurist, 140: II CHt vrai quo qunnd il n'y a pna de Iwil, c*08t la valeur

'^ nnnuollo de la propri6t6 qui d^*termino la juriadiution, n^aia il n*«n eat pan de

piOino quand II y a un b-iil, et lo (onno annuel no a^appliqao paa k Ioyor; or daii»

re8p6co, le Ioyor dtant pour 6 ana 4 100 par an, forme la aommo de $300 qui

« oxc6do la juriadiotioD do la Cour do Circpit ;—

Jugcment. — ** The court having heard tho partiea by thjiir coiittwel up(>n the
«• hxtep^on dielinatoire made and fyled in this aauae by the DefviidM^t, baring
" examined the proceedings and proof of record, and deiiberat«d Uiertfon, i'oiui*
" dering that the cause and cauaea of action mentioned and »ot forth in the Plaia-
' •' tiflTa declaration in this cause fyled, arise and have arisen out of a violation of a

" clause in the deed of lease between (ho Plaintiff and the Defendant dated 19^
'* April 1854, during the existence of tbonid lease, (H>nsidering farther that the
" causes upon which tho present action rests, arise and have ariadn from and
'* out of the relation of lessor and leaav^-considering further that the annual rant
^ ot the property mentioned in Plaintiff^ declaration atated and agraed open,
" by and between the Plaintiff and Defendant, in and by the said deed of lease,
«< did not exceed the sum of J£l5 annual rent, and was of that snm, payable
<i quartoriy.— Considering therefore that tho DtftHflanCt Eieeeption dielina-
«' toirt is unfounded, the court doth dismiss the <wid axoeption with one pouad
« costs di»trait» to Messrs Roy A Braneau, the att({tnics of the Plaintiff/^
Jioy and Bruneou, p<»ur le D*-mandciir.
Dorinu, Dorioa <t iiiniealy pour lo D6rendeur.

(B. R.)

-3*5

!|pvi/

♦

' >*?;•• '

. ,:'p^:-

tmr:'.

,.<-' • ■

,'

, ' ' .

' V'

t

*■'/

^

._ ^

'• . .

ft

>

_

'

■- '*

,%^»

CIRCUIT COURT, I8A0.

tM

>r

Coram Smitii J< '

.,■- '■■ "0 »ia.

The I'iBiBlifft, «ot out in thoir dik!U*...!«.. 1 /

mom,., which ,.H.K, l..ving otj^r.^! it fe " r" '" "'" "''-"« ^^ «'« ' ,

Ihe Dcfonaant ■pponrod by bin counLj V, // i , ' - *'

^•y. (lOtb July l«ii.) .ncl at TJ^JtL,i^ ' ^^""^ "^^ «" '»"» '^»»'« • '

the tbon ,H.n<Ji..g vacation ; and in .upCto hT . ^""'^ '°P'"''««^ *»•"•'•»
tbc judicature acr; 22 Viot:ch. ^ VlEot ! "« /" ''" '""' •«"^^- ^^
lulled to fyle any pica, <fec.. or o berlir 1^ .? ""'^ '" " ""'* "«" »»« "o^'

, ^»-t August inc.L!:.Xv:;:;:^r^ tbe iotbofj„,y.„^ ,:^

U.e court or judge .„ay alway. n^nL^ZZlT^l^r^ Zu "^"'«''' ^•'"«»'
order of tbe court iwued or made in ofZT 17 ^"^ ""^ P'""*" «'

c«e, or to do the U.ing which he mlh I VT'' *" * Particular suit or •
time mentioned in such prtl tr o"der '' "^ """'"'^ '*> ^« - ^''o

. f«).« U»e nature of the <^ Lt X ', / ^"^''^ '^ °"''' "^* °"'^

^ jbt would iiow fro« the^iot i.t;xr: :J:hTni"^::!^

for aererar week, aftar th« exDinUion i tC\ P*^**"* *»' *''• furni«hedj«rtii;
l^r^ while the le«.ni haZSwlte^ od^y,,,, .^e wTlUf th.
^furniture i„ the bouse being irow^i^^^^^^^^ W-ntof the «„t,

fto« • •Iwpio cm of uon-piyment of ri- i . '^^^^''^ ^ *«• different
Property after the termi^^XjIw t^T ^" '"^•"' *«««- of the

Pkb CuBUM.~After consaltlnir with JkJ^^L -'
%»k and UerUielot) they and I are nmiC?^ ^"'^**"' ('''«*•««« P«dgley
STt i. not bound JpfZTil 7 *'*•'* V5«?rmou. opinion that the Drfen-'

!»« beeu the uniform ^^Z dS^riiTo T '"""^ "'" ^'«''«'^- 8-'^
o-e of Barclay „ Bt^X^i^f^^llT^ "' ' '^'^ ^''^ «-« '» ">e
of the .Utute was to shut up iTe'l^^crul Ld T t"" "~"" '^''^ '"*«»«-
tieodings UBioM ip cases of absoluil I^^ ^ '^^ ""^ *'*^ J^'JicW pro-

Tbo 16 Vict. c. 194 3L a U p^^^^ f*^^- — ' -nL

J*"' 'P*^*y *^« effcptwnal cases in whinh th. j..^^^.

v

■ :i

.:■:.{■ 1

-7;

:M'r

4

2t9

CIRCUIT' COURT, 1869.

it

I f

CUirmont abould make the special order, while the terms of the 22 Vict, are express and
Dickson, almost absolute, that the Defendant shall not be held t6 {iroceed. In cases of
great emergency wjicre it would be clearly essential for the preservation of pro-
perty or rights of any kind, that no delay should take place I would then a«ait- '
, myself of the authority given under the 16th Viet. There is nothing in this case

however that should distinguish it from any ordinary acftion for debt or on cove*
nant so far as the question now at issue is to be considered. The case therefore .
is continued to the Ist September next for plea.

^- yu Defendant's motion granted.

- Otttmtff <fc A/orin, for Plaintiffs, "^s.,

" ' . ' " • Bovey, -for Defendant.

(w. 1. B.J , \ ■ •

AJ

k:.

,^N^'

COURT- OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

IN APPEAL

Fbok tub SvrBjaou Covat, DiimicT of Monibm^^'

MOXtl^EAL. IBT SEITFEMQEK^ 1800.

^

A

Cordm Sir L. H. Lafontaine, Birt., C. J. ; AyxwIn, J., DovAii, J.,
t . *i Meredith, J,, 0. MoiioELET, J,

' -,' bT\v605l*(W««da«< m Uw Court tielow).

'♦.-•

>•

A?D

V

> JlEIiLE {Vtalntiff lit the Court ieUftc),

fivp^UtiA. '

Itoajiondciit.

PrtlNO OP PAC*lrtW— IteFAULt."

- "V "^ * '- '

Held,— That u^ Arppellant who liaa /ailed to tylvMg/aetum wittiin tlio delay proscriHcd by the ruW > '

• of practice, will be relieved from the cpiksequences of bin dt^fa^lt, l>> ppoducuif; the/aetum when

'the Besp<v>dent makes a motion to liave the Appeal d^mlssed-in consequcnee o| the Appellant

not hbvingCyled Ilia factum witlmi the delay sieAiribed. Party ludofkult topivcogt»ormoUo». ■' ' '"

I .

^ E. Barnard, for Appellant;
Belle dh' Germain f for Respondent.
I fr.W.T.) ' .

Motion dismissed, tvith costs 41% mover.

-V

<B

■?

r^ 'I

■ < •

net

lei

tim

.(

WW

\ : «"

1

*«jri<

pro]

Can

T

' ., >

tot]

: ^

,. Vm

. .^*

a.^ T

Catl

. .^ i< .!'

;: n

• ; to'n

ihst

Bom

, > "<

.8i

' Briti

•ndl

.'^e

toth

that

-^'' ' ^_|ccor

perm

of Fi

shoQ]

-"V,, v -

away

. inrai

f ' - «

^

88 and
tscfl of
)f pro-
n a«ai^
18 case
cave*
ircfore

led.

>SJ

h .

"■

, '■

• ->

'■■■/'

■a . "'

:J.V

;■'■-■-;■

.*

" "..n'^ ■■:■■•'.■

ill..

0 ruW~ M.\r

» wboii

^W StrpiUEXB OO0BT OF MlflBOUBlN

Onno ITATM.

I^eld At St. tonlt, Ootober Term, I8M.J

. JTary Chdrhtte yZ Oabritl S. Cfkouttait, it

StivMT w Lowaa Cavaoa.

pinion 0^ Supreme Court, by BioiiABDSOir, Jadis#:~
The PUintiff ..sert» her right to fr^jdom on the ground that her ubdttef ^
negre-, w«i bom in Montie.1, in Lower Cn^Ia, .bSat the yelr 1 TaS^^

On the trial the pWntJff give p«ol evidence tending to prove that her A«
vrj, born m Montreal abo^t the year I768,.nd thrtdaVdWnct.3
ei«t and wa. pot tolerated by law at that time in Canada. ^

The defendant, on hi. part, gave parol evidence tending to prove the «>h«I^
exiAence of elaveiy in Canada in the vear 1768. that*Bhive»'^n!vl-^
goperty. and that Rose, the J^u^/.,,,^ ^^^i^ZZJIHS l^

' 5^/^'Sr*^f^ *^ *'""'•"« documentary evidence.' • '

. \v i The Mtioles of capitulation of the stoender of Montreal br the F«.««K

to the ^nglisK force., rigned on the 8th September. 1760, Wlorf iSl^

gommandeWn-Chief of the Briti.h fo«e.in North ImericikL^e M^m^U *!

. V^n, Governor ai^Lie^enant General for th, ^^tl^t

• h^^^'i •rtiolel. a. follows: «W>e njjgroe. and pLi.of bothmixe. AJI
^. ^°J^*M««lHyof.lave..^

' ^ ^3»&^y ^?>»85 they diali be at liberty to keep them in their Z^

; « Granted, eioept thoee v^o diaH be made prironeA*' ' ^ *^»

^ Ti??^*^ Thbdefinttivetreatybf peacecQnblud««ibet^„ theiing.ofG,«rt
^T!''!^^ ^^"^"^ ^"^ of Februa,7. ms, byHrhfchthe K^

' ^eS^rtl B-^ °^^"*' ^^ ^"•^- with alliUde>3:J

'^ * !u . ? Si.^^ Bntain agreed to grant the Uberty olthe Catholic relirion

Sl^i^^**"'? Tv^ ^at he wpuld ^e L m^t^S^Snl

^ '^i i!^l^"l^l?''° '"**^*^'' '^'«^' P'^^«^J*« wonhip oftheir reS
^rf^ to Ae r^^e Romish ChWh, «i for « th. lawiTof Grea S

lS?r V •'^*' T*^* "^'"^ ""'' ^* ""^^^ "'^ fi^Hfom wherever tW
.hoold think proper, and mighfeeell their eetates to; British subject..' or ta^ ^

rritTL^s^'^ '''*'""''"*-'• ^'^'"'«*'«»«j^'*^™.sW«^«t,-iie.,k •

m refeijigce to pb person, or preperty of the Cftnadikns. . ?5 vT^ ' * ^

E* ^ ^ P«»on. or property of the C|^adikns..

' -i,'',

»f •

kn mot !

Ib^ nnt ^uVF^dcomenls refeited to

n1^

.■*

a:

addoeed by On Pldi^

•■/■^■'fi^'^-^'f^ ■■■>

>.'

r

,f

Cbouteto.

258

SUPIiifeME COURT, 1887:

Hf»fr

*

-^-*
^

Thv^, The proelamation of George Ill< dated Yth October, 1 76 3. It begios
by reciting that «tteQ|ive and valuable acquisidooiiin .^erica bad been secured
teethe Crown by the tr«aty concluded at Paris on. the lOtb ofPobniary, 176^, .
•nd being desirous that; his subjects, as well |»f his obgdoms, aa of his colonies
in America^inight avail themselves of tlie great bonentf which would accrue to''
them jf^om weir commerce^ dco^ he h^ thought fit to issi^his prodaioaation and
thereby, to publish and declare to hisaubjeotsthathehad^nted letters patent
to erect wityn the countries and islands ceded and confirmed by ^d treaty
four ^stinot goi»<emme9(s diUed by the names of Quebec (Canada,) Bast Florida,
'. W88tiWidaip|,0|reniida^ a:-^-- ^ ;./ '^'& ' -l'^ C''^' ..- -^ r.^'- '^'r.. -
■ It then deEdgnaliiKth^ extent and boundaries of said Governments, and declares

• aalol^s: "Atid.^lli^reas, it will greatly cdntribute to the speedy settling our
' said new Qovemmeat^ thai<Mir loving subjects should bdiiiformedof ourpater*

nal carfi for the seouritjy of the liberfy and ptoperties of those who are, and shall
become inhabitants ; wd havethonghtfit Wptibli^ and declare,' by this our
ProolamatiSo, Uiat we have M the letters patettt^ linder our great aecd of Ox«at
-Britain, by which thesiu^ goven^entd are xionatituted, given express power and -

' 'directions to our Governors of our said colonies, respectively, that so soon as the
'^state andijtstrcumstanctt of our said colonies will admit thereof, they ahall, with
the. advice and consent of the members of our Conned, summon imd call gmeral
WMemblias irithin the said governments resjpectively, in saoh maooer and form .
as is ,uaed>nd directed in thoB^cobiiies and p^yinces in America which mre
qnder out immediate govemnient; and we have also givw power to the said -
Governors, ^th the consent of our said Councils, an^i ttie representatives of the
peopl^ BO io^be soinmoned'a^ afoieMid, to make, contotitate and ordain laws,
statutes and oldinances^ for the public peace, welfare and good government of
OUT said c^ciniei^aDd of the people acid inhabitants th«i«of, as near as may be,
i^e^e to.tibe laws of England, aii(| under such regulaHons mi restrictions
as are^tned in otiier Colonies; and in tbe mmn time, and until such assembliss
ean be called as aforesaid, all persons inhabiting or resorting t^ our s^ coh»iea

' may confide in our royal protection for the enjoyment of the benefits of the laws
of our realm of England; for which .pnrpoae we have given power, tinder our

• great seal, to the Governors of said eolonies respectively, tO' erect and <sonstilute
witb the advice of our said Councils, r^pectively, courts of judicature and public
justice within our said colonies, for the hearing and detiermining 'sf all causw a»
well criminal as civil, according to law and equity, fmd, as near as may be '
%gt66ikil9 to ihi UiWKiHingiKady '

There is ncvthii^ ebe in the Proclamation tihat relates to iJiia sabjoot j .

Fourth. The act of the British Parliamentof 1774, 14 George m, ci^M.
•entitled '* An act fbr> making more effectual provision for the government of the
Ftovinoe of Qa(^>ec is^I^orth America." (SO Britidt 6tat at laige, 649.) There '
is nothing in this act-that l>ear8 on the subject but ihe two Mowiiig, sections*: '

''Sao. 4.< And, whereas, ^e^ provisions made by iJiesud proclamation^
respect to the civil ^vemment of skid province of Quebec, and the p6weiB and
auth<^ttes given ^ ik« Governor and other civil officers of ^e said Province,
by the 'grantH Mid commTfwoiiaiSBnedip hoBseq^neneethepeftfi have been iband '

./■ .*<

I* '

9

»-;■*-

^^'' :■•;■ r.,i

:'<'*':'''•>.:■ \

andl^

A ■:■,

• to proj

t * ■ ■':* ■'

rolefoi

I ■

in 9m
byhis

• J

ll'-' ^ih

iht^ si

' ' '' .■■■:

- 'passed

^ ; 1

;■>■.;:■ mi

,\ ■" , :

/^''*MA

\ V.;,

(8tB,i

' encouia

' '*■ *. '''

.. ■ "■ „":iB<i»ta:

t''^j ,d»ea,'be-

■»^ '--"■'■ \.-

Mwadri

y ^ '■ ■■^.■■

i>res^t

after iki

■'i

pmai

belongin

•> : i '

^ ymitm

W J-Miii

'■ ''■_■.■

; #«(em'i

m^

^ •

fintobta

,-

1

. y -

'^ ■".•-/ ■■'■

'.' '■ -.*

*

if

'M

ftrPREME COURT, 18«».

, an ortablished fern <* doMtitutH«3^.rlZ^n?^ k ^f f'^^^ ^-^^
and property had been i>^^ »X»ton of li^ws, l,y.,»hioIi iheir pvmm»

*be Mmo Wata. to the ^^^^^o.^^'' T^ P'od«natk«, «> ft, ^^ «
-othority whereof thegoTl«^ro7t^2^?p^^ '^f'"'"'"^ '^«'' ««»
• ^ and all ,nd erery the frnTnTi^^^ ^^"'* "-ipfeB-itadmhuat**},

C<^uncilofQ«elS,fo:;1rr^LlS^^^

. JiP^^ttereof^andtholrrh^^rfSS'^'r^r'^'^
, /iom and after the fi«t day of MaToi^SnTl* * ^"^ ""^ "•^^ ^«^
fire.- ;^-'y'*''^**'<'«'««'f«»«^en hundred and seventy!

•S»o. «. And be it further enaeted bv thfl »,.#j.«^* # .' '
IfaM/s Ca^i,„ .^tjecta, witlrinrp^vSTe^ftleL r^^^^ *^'* "'^^

and Parliament of Great Bl&J'ir^^
' topropertyand ^^ltk^X»,^k^

mp^^bflheiiiartfc of jurti<^ioSlS w^^^T^*^*""*^*^ *

«%l»t|3» »>* determinoj a«eeftbl» teA;«S V ?^^ *^ "'^ Fopeaty and

^«y shall be vari^r^Sf ? ^- ^ *"** **«*«?• 3rG.»aCm,dl

, , -An Act for frntmnmrng new aettf«r mI u^!l , ^' '^^P^ 3^M«titted»
' encouragenient altoOd U^^l Z^Z^ ?*^«^ »» ^ «««die«t ttat

,d|-,beJtth6refoirr4^?rj^
tiiaadncea^c^^^;^

gesent parliament ««e»bK«nr^rau^^^^^^

*^ or perL^ beingTllZ tZ^T ^^ '^d l»i««y, if any - '

^•'•^H or to any pa^t of Che Ift^^TL r.^ ^"^ <>'' %o|S<Hor S^dmot - '

.«« pntpose ^|le eov#rtor, or in his a^SoellS

,.:.;ir'

1

J!

■t

.*;.>n

( •

i..

/t

^ J.

1 J,ii '

■:^.

■'.J\"

if::

>»:;.

Aviotte

Mi
<

.a

seo

SUPRBMB COURti 18S7.

Lieutenant GoTernor of u^ Wand, colonieB or province* respeotively, to import
into the same in British shi^w owned by his Majesty's subjects, and navigated ao-
oorditig to law, afay negroes, household fiimiture, utensilsof husbandry anddothlng
free of duty ; provided alway^ Uiat such household furniture, utensils of husband-
ry and clothing shall not in the whole exceed the value of &fty pounds for every
white person that shall belong to such family, and the value of forty shillings for
every negro brought by such white person ; and if any dispute shall arise as to
the value of *jich household furniture, utensils of husbandry; or clothing, the same
ahallV he»t^ and determined hy ti»e arbitration of three British' merchants, at
the pibrt iwiere the same slflill be imported, one.of'such British merchants to be
appointed by the Governor, or in his absence by the Lieutenant Governor of such
"JaU^d" ftl^J^rovince;. or by the^^letftor of Customs at such port, and one by

the person BO epmfDg>it^ biB ^»V>'7* • ,

IL And be it/itrther enacted. That all sales or bargains for the sale of any

negro, household furniture, utensils of husbandry, or clothing so imported, which

shall bemade wjthin twelve calendar months after jtihe importation of the same,^

(ezeeptin cas* of i^ebftnlcruptcy of the owner thMpo^ diall be null and vpid

. to all intifehta and purposes whatsoever," " '^ "

The Aird Andlastsootion relates only to the oaUi of allegiance required to be
talcen Vy the immigrant. '" ', / ' . V

SixA. The actof the Provincial Pariiament of Upper Canada, p*«ed July ,
0th, 1793. (diapter VIII, 1 Rev. Stats, of Upper Ganada 18;)

The first section of this act recites, that it is highly expedient to abolish sla-
very in the Province so far as the same may gradnuly be done without violating
' private property. It then repeals so much of thafiMst of 1700 as enables the
Governor or Lieutenant Governor to grant licepsofor die importation of negroes^
and fbrbids any negro or other person subjected to the condition of a* slave frtm.

coming or being brought into the Province
apbject to the condition of » ftlave.

The second section! provides that nothing
extend to jiiberiite an^ negrb subjected to
p^Staes^o|i of his owner, wbo should have

ee'the jpaissage of. the act, to ht/

ser

TiMA in conformity to the conditions
wise come into the possession of any pe
The third section declares that, in
/''vrithin the Province, every child the

/ aU

V

^tbe act ^ould be construed to
(T^or to discharge him from /the
iei or-been brought into the Pro-
tt of 1700, or ebpuld have other-
tn'by gift,, beqtiest or purchase. ,, , ,
r^to prevent th^ continuation of slavery ^'
er 'born of a negro woman, who Ifras a '
slave, should remain with his or her i^other of mistress until such qiild dioUld' .
Arrive at the age of twenty-five yean<, and then be free. ;

At the requeat of the defendant tne Court gave the following instructioii^ - -^ <
' 1st. ** If 1^0 Slavery existed ^y virtue of t^e laws %nd Ordinances of the
French Goverwient in. Canada, prior to tiie acqiiiution of that country by the
English, and if tW m&d»,oi caiM^Blatibn, the |reaty of cession, ihfi act» of Par-
liameat of 1774 md 1790, and the Kiag'sproolamation of 1768 be correct copiea
<^ the genuine doeus^ts, ihea negro sUvery was ba^otioned «s4 j^eeantted by
m in the country called the.Province of Ganady (which inciades Montreal^^-*

lln ♦/. fl.- «*-r than f^

' it all times firooi tiie year I7q0 to the year 1790.

e.rr
W

J'

:*♦..

.-^''

*'-

% ■

%:■

v^

■'>■

'f^'^,.

SUPREME COURT, I85».

■.- !

A ■_ ~ ■

261

- "V ■

■ 1 ".*

r^F

'<j>i.

And afterwards at the plaintira inBtanee giv^this: "mether Roae waa

TheM two imtnicUons are ineofiipatiblQ abd both oaftnot stand. Tbi» first
^'^ «• matter of law, the legaUtj of the docnmenta named in it, and the
^ P«^««ifg»t«««.«ned,thatiti^it.d^^^

.^ on Aetf'taean.i^.nd operation. Olo «»Ond wbmitted every proS

1«SL *,:°?''*^*"**^'*^°'^*'y*^«j«7- Ifitwi-aconclLo^f
l.w from the document. ,«^| in evidence, io be ^eddedbr^* Conrt ttlt
d.v«^ w« «„ctK»„ed in C«UKl.,itwa.notp«,pe,.to«fi^ Aequestion whel^^

inconrfrtent with the firat, th«.de^d«,t cannot compliiin. and if the C w«
- coiMct, the other ».. wrong, iiid was calculated tojaidewlthe jury to the do.
__l^/j«d«>^priHic«- Tho quali^ of the«,in.tnZnsb?u.t4S,«init
Je qn«rtion,wi»theriti. the dutyof tho CcKutorthejniy to^^^^^^

' 'of^fe^^''^^'^'**!f*^ ^«t.*>-ottd.e judidkl noUceofle l«r;
9f a forp^fft cpnntiy, but they must be proved as other f«rts in a trial. It Sm

' 5„" *"**•»; i»«M»yJ» proved by paroL (Bivingston vs. Iftiyliind Wm.ce
. Coippany, « Cranch, 280.) But Uke the p,^f of every otherfect. the beHS

SJ^'^f^etwnWMdmrtoreofanupwritten contract, so he Wtest^

'- Zf ^^;r* '^ mntfm^t it«,lf must be produc^l. So foreigTwri^

^^rZT^STn^'^'' "^ ^""^'^ ^ StarkieVBv. wf^^n^
. . •j!«l«r.,WaUng,P.taC.229;RobMiaonv 3fer«. 2 Wash C 0 I • TT«^

J^*^^ ^Mitev.H«nwick,(4emn.lfi5) Qibb.. (Tn^p^^
«gu l«w, not written, an, Io be p«>Ved by4ha n»>l e»-n Wi»„ .. ^' ^"^

competent ddH. B^nt wh- thev are in writingyTL^py «3rlS^
mnatJMDnMlMtti*' wi«i-» t ^ t^ -«,-wpjr rnfiwiy aMtbaaticate^

i f^^ • ' pmntttei a witness toapwdc of the eflaet amistata of tb«
^'^^"^ *«» • ^»^ b«4^««e»on. Ji disI^tT^i Ai!

l^ZtT^f^::!^'^ *^ •«>«•%» l«#fc.ddi*ised in" thiflS
fatttote to thp. Cijnrt or to Ih. J«,y. in Q^mwqua v. Wiling it h «dd 23'

tllylwiviHrf therefore it dust be protH *^ the p^o£«b, JfSi;
^^■^gy totUJ..tey.^ Andin^Vodr, vX-t/fjii. IM) &

ObatliNs

<*

-<»

^ ^^

A;,"i%

- |i.

^

^im"i.-

%
H'

mtt

SOPREMB OOURT. 1887.

CJteMta

mr

ilAdtb«

i"^

IV m

"« »"

h

a«

n?

— -| ;— ■! « ■ - ' '■ ■ ^^^^^^—^—w II I ,11 II, II BnuMMM I I, I ^im^m^^^m

Bat the deoided weight of the Amerioao l^athpritiee goea to the length of cata-
bliihing the doctrine, not only that it k th^ Wrinoe ftnd doty of the Court to
initract the jury IS fa. the meaning and effe«i of a foreign law, when proved^,
whether the Uw ja written or unwritten, bat that the proof mutt be made to tiio v
CpaiL ., Mr. Jutuje Story, in 'hia Oonflict of 'Laws, (seetion 638) says : ** 4il ^
matters of law aq9im)perly re&rable-to th« Colut, and the object of the proof,
of foreign law is to enable the Coait ^ instruotthe jury what, in point of laMr,;
k the result of the foreign law to bo applied to ^e matters in controversy bef<>rQ ,
them. The Court aie 'ti^eiffoie ,to decide what k the proper evidence of tti^
lwr»of a foreign coontryf and when eviclenoek given of these laws, the Ooar|
«rotQJQ<tt|^theirappUo^)ility,wbeBproy«d,to4heoaseita And Mr.,

Gr^nTM iB^ni«vtreatue on evideoo^ (1 Cireecd. ti^ sec 488,) quotas, 4j^ . ^
Motion HQii^ptoiy, and incojcpOrates it into the text ofhisVotk as cotttal^x^ .
le. Cfibson, Chief Justice,' obsecved, in 8\^h^ vs. |}vans. (1 Penn,'
lUi^icipid law u a matter of con^t> and as si^ .tiie construotieaV
*8tatirt(to, as in the cj|^ of any other written compact, b^ongs to thef,
^tjulde disUnotion m^ be talee'n in thk nspeot between written
'ritteia law, which' necessarily zesti on parbl, bat it seems to hai|^ beef •,
. disregarded." tv \

; Thoufii Uie Supreme Conrt of North Carolina, in the case of the State vs.
riaoisonj, deciding that a foreign law was to. be proved as a fact to\tAte jury, hi^d(/
,r l^i iwhen it k established ** its meaning, its eondosion and effect k the prbnncA
\ ,Qlf the Ipourt It k a matter of profesaional science, and as the terms of the law- ,
. .. are laken to be ascertained by the jQfy, there k no necessity for infiosii^ on.,
' > thoni thif) bfiiden of affixing a meaning <oa -tiiwa more thui on our 0^8 statutes. '

> And^.'ft late case {5 Iredell) the same Court decided, that where tbe question ^
\ li;ns«a Wder^a statute^it k the province of the Court to tteiside, bo^ w to tl^.
, «)Ciipte|)ocr of the statute And its proper construeliom The casein Xng4 vs. Miir^ •

pti^"^' AUk, 897) tamed on t^eoonstraetion oC<a foiei|^ statute^and jhj^i;

J^dge tt dlelivering th# opinion of the Court observed : ^It seem to oik a o^^.^
-. fnld^ "^position, that bws,whetiierwritteniStata^ ft ford^must ^

b« ascertained in Ae genend, and always constmed by the Coi^ and leqaally .

'«0,l)uift it k manifestly not tlie province of the jury to place the constiuction
< ,iipoaitimdei^any oircumstancesi^V «/ " >

^ Agi^n, in a tety recent «afie in F^nntylvania ^odc vs. Laumui, fi) fitajtd
' ,p^V447) the doctrine was reass^ied, that though the law of another "State^^a : \.

,4 matter of fiust, it knot neceesajy to be foiM^ byv-l;!^
" tltM-aU the aaalogiea of the kw inclined the Couzt^o regard the in^rp^||^i

> ofioreignjawsy whether written or unM^eOf. na j^ing.withinthe A>pvince
tfeo-Oouet.- .,.:■.., % ';.., J. ....': , . .. '' .^^^r^ . • ^ .., ,.,,,. ;,•/•., ,.',
, ^It may be donated whether (he riil^ oiighttobe (ipplie^oFcitD be practicdljr
enforosd, ^hen the foreign- law offered in evidence is unwritten, or k 'the oomrnim f
law Qf the Country where it prevails; for in many iaytanceil as in-Uie case in Ctli
Iledell, thi> evidence may be conflicting, and aU||e witnessee may state the law "^
differently, i^ whi«^ ease it would be eztremfljillMBeult for the Court to deter- ^
minfi ^Hbyt tli» fa<;ti BffliglitrtotT^ prevgdi OTtgdwUrethelejIi^l ftffflftnftho'^

^

j;

I'

*.

":ii:'y:

ai?-

r» - .

t> 1 .-■

/

M.

'\..

SUPREME COURT, 1887.

■ '■■■S.

sf^ente of text wriZ^r.^ J^: * **° '"'' "'^'^^ *»»« *"'"•» J»w th«

Ff when a ford™ J« h^Z? "? *••; ^^ '" *'P°«°<»5«« ««fo«igt. law,,
lal writer, n.1% eTattS^rd * ^^^^
.r t^rP«^.e^ieH::»%*:^r:2^^^^^ -tne»e...,bee,a™inedfor

vince of Quebec S mo^ moTaXl1*fr ^ "°'^' '^ '*-'» *^« ^°-

from the facto stated in it • and it Jn ♦Kw '' v * '^"'''^^° ''^ ^^^"""^

•«^ evidence. 7 ^ '* """ ^^^'^'^'^ »« necessary ,to recur to the^

certain extent while undJtKT J ,T^j^^^ ilareiy existed in Canada to a
,no law by wSch i wLt^^^^^^^ f *^J ^^''^ ^tbongh he coold find

^anceoflhelntenlnufl'^^^^^^^ *? Jl'^ Jear 1709; when, by an ordi-

purchase ^egrorard ^Ij';:^^' f™'^'- -« ^i'^e? to the colonists to
the cultivatioVof trs<jr i^TtJi f"''"' ''"''"'^ *^^ '"^^^^ »« -^^^-^ i^
i« order to confirm a tact.WhtrhL"'"""'^ '^"'^ *" '«^^ ^^ ^"^^
BO law of the French Golnl!;*^^ ?""*"'''^ '^*"^^ "^o^g^ there was
" been doubte^wi;:^:^ t W ^^"2^ ^^"^ " ?""'" ^*' '' ^^
coold establil therein such a^^^!! ,«ny Go^rnor of a particular colony,

l;e «,. "it ialeruL ho;l;Str^^^^^^^^^^ '"^ " «'-'^- »«'

slarory of neffroes and n«ni» « i • **"" ^'^H'ance and before,

-continued in rCoTonyrn^ ^C "'''f''"^ ^ee.. practiced and stU

Inte„dan,of the fi J^C^er' f^^T ^ l^^^^^^
of slayes was established and di«^f«/i ♦« k t ^ \ ^' ***® emancipation

^ '^^H^^tyot.l.yery1;Ztt^^^^^^ So far, the existence, tf not

assumed the legal ex7stence of Tvl tu^e'o^lf.f "' theorditance Of Itae
»g of the ordinance of lYorZ'itS^^t'' '"'"'' ''''"^*' ^° 'P*«k-
Colony to hold negroes and ludiaT^f > f ^'' '* ''**"'^ ^* '^'^' to ^e
and, therefore, theCLrand Ci^ Lk t .t* "*'""' **"^ ^«"«' «« «'«'««.
be held by tie P-cirrst t " ^av^^ 1^ ^ ^^^
required mastere, who emancinated thlZ' . . *^^ ordinance of ^86

^n^ents passed l^fo.publi:^^-:^'^^^^^
void. In answer to the Question »j,.*i, , ^ otiier forms of emancipation

^waa recognized and 2Z^Z{ZTZ^''V "^^
•FMncefLrepKed • "I belL« fi T ^* ''^'^' **"* "^^^^ h«long«d to
..groel^ ^^otheL^:^ ::^f^^ ^^l^ «>-ry res^,
ce., while t,h. ro,nfry rrmniu.J uudu Ll,? Z^;lg^"^^ !°/'"o*^ '"^tan-

OhottMi.

\

— a

"X

•fc'

•#'

S«4

(
SUPREME COUBT. 1861

CbarMte
ChoalMu.

Both of these gentlemen prove that slavery existed in Canada from a period •!
leaat aa earl/ aa from 1709 to 1160 ; and though ^e^^ wy there was no act of th«
French OoTernment legaliung it, we know that France permitted BlaT«ry in her
Weat India colonies, and it cannot be supposed that she was ignorant of the
stat« of things ip Canada for so long a time. And it may be assumed that sla-
▼ery existed in Canada under the French rule, not only d«/aeto bnt d« jwf
Slavery existed in nearly jrtl of the North American colonies, though no law or
•royal decree has been found introducing it ; but it was permitted, and aflcrwartls
sanctioned by laws concerning it, passed by Colonial Assemblies with the kno*- .
\iedge of the home govornmoijt. . ,

Jlhe facts developed by the testimony of these witnesses in reference to the
state of things in Canada before 1760, explains, if explanation was necessary,
the purpoeobfthe 47th article of the capitulation. It will be observed, by an
examination ©nhfi articles of capitulation, that they make very few provisions "r
affecting the inh^itants of Canada; and it is hardly probable that a besieged
army, in the face of wi enemy's guns, would stipulate/in a separate article for
>he protection of an inteiwt that had no real oxistenjpr. No other allusion ia
made to the property of thennhabitants who intended* to remain in the colony,
and the 47th article is not only\a clear recognition of the existence of slavery,
but of the value of the interestsNsonnected with it. Ohly the most prominent
objects seem to'have engaged the attention of the retiring^overnor, for he se-
cures nothing for his master's subject^ but their religion and their slaves. ' I
The national religion of England was protestant, and the French king was
therefore jealous of the religion of his Canadian subjects, and the reason is ob-
vious, why the treaty of 1763 secured to the Canadians the enjoynaent of the
Boman Catholic religion, and did not stipulate for any other rights of conscience
or property. No argument can be drawn from tha silence of the 'Trefet/'on the
subject of slavery or any other peculiar institution, for the inhabitants of Can^^
da, without any special guaranties, were entitled to'ijll their rights of property
after the qhange of government, which they possed^ under. their former sove- *
reign. The cession of a territory only passes the sovereignty^ and doespjt in-
terferewith private property. This is an established rule of public law^ahd is^
acknowledged and respected by all civilized nationa, The AUbjeotsjor citizens .
of a conqured or ceded country retain all rights of property which anrnot taken
away by t^ new sovereign," an^remain unde<;|}ieir former laws \m\\ they are
«iiaDged. Strother vs. Lu<?»s, 12 Peter, 438; Mitchell vs. Uni»4 States, 9'
Peters 734 ; BlackVCom. 10'7. In the United StiJtes vs.TE^rcheman C^ Pet. 87.),
Chief Justice M^^rshall, in asking of the riglits to propeJfy. acquired in Florida
bafcre its ceeuon to the.Unijt&i States remarip ; /' The people change tibeir al-
legiance ; their relationa to^t^nip^jpnt sovereign is *«solved, but the^ relatione
to each othe^ and their right|^4?!ropeH;r^ remjwa uiidisCait^ If this be the i
'^*odem rule iu caeee <*ronq««l^" 1#ho c^ dgubt its applic^ion to the case <^
• "an amicable oessioui^f territorjr. ''S#d |lorida changed its sovereign by an act
4antatninf no-^ipu|Jtiona Tespeisting'^^ proper^ df individuids, the rights of
property 9. afltbtiik wfa^ ■^ewm|yal;^ectaj)tigitilW"« of Jj^ft M

veuld haw? oeai anaffeoted by the cbangei This principle was recognized is

'.\

• Y

1-* "•■ f

SUPRKlfE (SOUBI; 1^7^ ■

li; ■

t;*-

JgUnd Jn Mftrenoe to Jwuic .. wHy •• J»Wa, to Blink«rd n. <3for4 4
Modern Rep. 822. AI.O by Lo«I M^d, in fta^ ^ Vauglun. 4 Bn,. ^m
SliiTery now eiistt m LoaJsiana, MiS^ Md Florid*, ifithoat any Mt of iaftjr
totion introducing it, uid none wm neeeMSpy, fo# b*rtng in exigence nnder U,«
Implied wnotioD at least of France and Sp^in in i803 and 1B19, it waa ^Una-
ed, and waa not dependant on any positive law for recognition. • ^

It is insieted, that the R<iyal Phwlamation of October 7, 1768, had the effeet

of abolishing slavery in Canada. Admitting that ihe King-, prerogative included

the power of making law. for the English oolonie^ we have seawhed thronrii

•very clanse of the proolamaUon to find awprd or sentence which, intenn. or by

vm^iha, remotely touches the subject We have been directed to the clause of

nhe proclamation set o^t in the first part of this opinion, but on looking at it, it

win be «Mn that no new law is decreed, but only the aasutance is given, that.

J»U1 provincial asMmblie. can be called, all person, inhabiting or resorting to '

1 T »!!'"• *',^^*«'' ^' ^^'^da, We.^ Florid, and Grenada, may confide in

UwBoyal^lam»tionfortheenjoyment'ofthebenefit of the hiw« of England.

and that orders had been given to the Governor, of said colonies respecUvely. to

•«c courts of justice for the hearing and aetermining of all caul^ as well

,^ cntolnal as civil, as near a. may be agreeable to the 1»wb of England. The

Judge 8 wholq testimony we.havetioticed, says, that this pro«sl«ination introduced

mto all the^olonies menUoned in it, the "common law of England," and that

tlie genius and spirit of the cortmoMaw is so hostile to slavey that whenever

It IS mtpoduced or prevail, it operate/, >«(,/aeto to abolid»-.Wery. '

m 1763 the Englirfi acquired, beside. Canada, Florida, Dominico, Saint
Vincent and Tobago, itt all which-slaverv existed, apd though the pitMsWioir
eipressly applied to all, it is weH known,1nd these gentlemeUitoit, that it did
not have the effect of aboHAing slavery in Bferida and thM^aainea, It k
strange that it was ,K,tential for thCpuipose inipnted ^o it i. onfplace, knd not
m the o^rs. Th^ Supreme Court of;Loai,iana remarked, in Seville v.. Chre-

• U^*v' ^^' ^^^^ *"*^^ ■•** ^^'^ »*»'« *° fi"*^ ""y trwe of a legisla.

ive^f th<j European powers for the introduction of slaveiy into their Ame-

ican dbmimoM,* Yetit is (»n undisputed histSrical fact, thaj; slavei^r exi.ted in
•early all the English colonies, now includfid/Sn the United States, and that in"
««jh of them jhe "common law" wa. cUiiAd'astheir birth^ght, and cause,
m their courts were determined a^eei^bll to the Jaws of England". If the
opinion of Ae^ Caaadian Judge, is correct/it is evident that the common law
vra. not uniform m its operation, for itdid notjierform th« woiM" t»»« ^te^^
colonies ascribed tf it in Canada. v .^M- , ''^ '

The Common l^W of England was introduce* inJliswuri by lin/actof Ihe"
Temtonai legislature of the 19th of ^JanuaryV 1816, and nobody e/er supUd
that It was equivafent to an aciof emancipation.- ^^^'

^at^T "I.! '' ^*^™«y ^"^"'^ ^- Stewart, (2 MerwaK^SB;) the questftm^^^
•WM^ether th^ proclamation -^ have been coqailiKfextended the lawa

■" — ■-— ——4- , • __23Hl.

lW6,known8«4herCl«fcnWr. Ed>Jnr» ; ;

{^'

r

Kdict^r JIaroh.

1^ ■ .

*

41

>!,Tr-

f

.1/

CharUiUe

vs.

'%

"-1

26a

■^

I

SUt'RBMJB COURT, laaT.

" w «

iigwi';".'

imi

BI7 (loubUd in Uukt o«M wtieth«r tfu
Jtion to the Province of Qtioboo.
ubii«rv«ii -^ «' It Hootn* to. U ■iippmoc

of EiigTand if> Orenadt, and it

?^pro carried Uy force of t|« proclan..

MMter of theRoHi, 8if %illiam (Jrai . __ ,.^ ^ _ _ -,.,,,^«u

^ that this WM done by theprool«in«lio](ofh«3, which i« set forth ip the report-
With regard to three ofthe four govoriimenUi to .jivhich thia, proclamation rolatiJ,
v|z : Ea«t Florida, West Florida and Grenada, I am not aware that any'contro-
viSny as to the effect of it ^Ter arose. Terhape there may have boon with res-
peot to th^m, other acta and instrumontii more directly expreMlve of his Mi^es-
ty's intention to introduce the laws of England. But as to the fourth, via : the
govcrnn&ont of Quoboo, which was included in the sarao proclamation, and whore
it qi^ist have had the sanie Idgal effect ai in the others, it became a matter of
jrftat and long-continued discuision whetherXthe Uws of England had thereby
been generally introduced in al)rogation of l^e ancient municipal laws of tlie*
countryt In a report made by the Attorney and Solicitor General in 1760, little '
6th»f eflBoot was ascribed to this proclamation than of extending to the inhabit-
ants of Canada the benefit of the cHminal law of England;' But no matter
whether or. not the proclamation introduced th« laws o/'Engfimd inUX Canada,
or whether they produced any change as 1» the rights of property, it ii certain,
that the act of Parliamiant of 1774 repealed- so much of the proclamation as re-
lated to the. laws of England, and «nactod, that the Canadians within tlio Pro-
vince of Quebec might " hold ind ienjoy their property arid possessions, together
with all customs and °"%^t!J^^<> .^^^'^^t ap^ all other their civil rights, in
as large, ample and ^<''>^llflHHw<>>^ as if the said proclamation" had not been
made; "and that in a|^|H^p>f cofrtrovemy relative to property and civil
rights," resort " shtiuld @S'^^ffiio laws of Canada as the rule for the decision
of the same." ^^

The Act of 17,W) is only consistont with itself on the idea that it assumed the
existence of slavery in Canada. The mention of negroes is only in connection
with other property which is exempted from the payment of an import duty>
and the prohibition on the sale of negroes or furniture, imported under the act
within twelve months, was to prevent|pa«ds on the revenue, and it implied tha*
sales of negroes were lawful after the expiration of a year from the time they
were imported. It is said th^t this act was foi<^e benefit of British subjects
whose homes were uncomfortable to them in the Xfnited States, after our inde-,
pendence was achieved. This is doubtless true, but it is hardly probable that
ou^of tenderness to; tbism. Parliament would have established in Canada, for
Ireir benefit alone, a system of slavery which had never before existed there,
nd which it is alleged is W repugnant to the genius of the common law.

The Province of Quebec was divided into the Provinces of Upper and Lower
anada, by an Order in Council, August 24, 1791, which took effect 26th De-
cemjier following.

Tte act of 1793, paMod by the Parliament of Upper Canada, nof only repc^al-
fed the emigration act of 1790, but provided for the prospective^ gradual
emancipation of the slaves born thereafter. It assumed that theJewere other
slaves in the province than such as had been imported under the license granted
by the act of 1790. for the 2d section provided that the act shonld nnt. .tpply t^

Nr.

\

•(.

;,..r.:

».<*'

J

i'

^ «

.; V

fa *

1^

\

Hf

i^ii

perm!

jiided tb«
I don^ity
pk-op^rty and

aavdi

suPRpiE cx)UttT, leay.

«r Tl ll^"*' *''o. h*dl«„ brought in undot iJu of nwTl>r"£

. Moh «. b«l otL^rwiao come to the po-e«ion of any. pomon by Kfft, bZ«it «

pun^hiue. A«d if there wore no other, .lave, tha/au.h a. hll^bi^ ^rt^

under the act of 1700, there wa. no re«ron for uiootior-- -- ^ '^^^

U 18 trao thin laV wai. the act of Upper Cani
treal; but it whh pas'acd very goon after tlie Pro
if slaves woio lawftilly hold in tlio upper part oi
It rauit be Buppoeed that tho law which
tl'roughout the whole Trovince.

The Parliament of Upper Canada, at iu flnt ,„— ,
English law quite m effectually as the King's proclamll
as the rule of decision in all matters of oontroversv reiatiw to r.^^^ . a

If . contrcmy .b„„M ,ri„ i„ at, court. ».to wi,.U«r .W«. w» .„ij„

•.Ue^LuS beT^: ''3 .^^->*^"*-- «^ven for the defe.dlt ou
•uenoe » not to bo ^nstrued mto a^ approval of them. The ihirA ln.*Jl*!^„

:a^'^'f' foritimpUe. thatl plgintUr ^l^^:^^:^

ah^herdegree of ^idm^ and that she must connect eve^" link ,1^0X0

mav n;^vr .r. T T^ ' *^"^'*^*^ *"« ^^'^ '«««°«'0'^ co^ditioni and W
may pr^ve such facta as are perUneut to the i^sue, mkI may invokoTuchrr^
sumptiofl, sathe law.raisesfipm p^tioula. acts. VaS p^Jdrlf^
Tr^ttTi "V"^^^^ « ^««~ - -latto, h* i^4S 4~^
^.|^t to freedom," {Revised Statute^ 1946rSection 633j^t this is^
■y common law rule of evidence. «d with tiis^^cepUoa Ve are^iot a«^e of^^
^ Other "lie peculiarly applicable te^uchfluita. , ^ . * - ^^^S^ ;

\ \ femSl^*^^ concurring, the judgement wUr be revereed and flie d,uBe
W /SeoTi,^J|«lg^4i88ei»ting:yiu^

i

V

f

^

» 1

^4^ n

: ^

■ 1

--k^

■Uia

.." ■■*,

r':*-

.1

''M^

.;l

■i i-*

**

i ''9^
T-^'

■?

f ^«i > »• J I »»^ /

«>'

.i;^ ''^

^ I.r .

/. f

fr' I

-'«Vi.^-■

%.-•

lli

-*t^M^

■ ' "M'

/■

■ /■«.-■,.

,

, ■ . '

,/

,

.•^.

„■- ,/,.

■•' ■''■

. ^

■'%'..

»

'

'■;'*

'

1

■"

\

>

' '■

■ ..

'. •

f

-, ■,

-v,

.' ^

■.,

*

'V»

•''■

•

»

' ' s

■' I

- /

-'

«

■ r-

/ ■''

. ' ,

*.

•<

■♦

«

■fc

'■

■•'

y

4

t

»

-" -V- '

■

. *•

'■^.■'

■■ . ■■■

■■%

'.^.■:: 1

' ,,';c^

M.

■ ■ .' ''i'

^^y^l' ■■

■ .'. I

1

■

i

M

■

1

1

i

i

■

■

i

■i

■

■

Ml

\

V

m

'*'- ^ o}-

W,

.N

"

'*»

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-S)

. /

iw *,

^^

^.^'

**

't .

f.o

^ 1^ 12.2 . ''

i

^'ilMlM

,. ^ r .-" -f

PhotDgraphic

1

.\''.

^

:^'^

^\^

"f^

,>-.

.Sciences
Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580

(716)872-4503

'4^

M,

:f J

p

\

Mft

StPREMB COtmt, 165?.

J"*"" iatirpnUtioo <tf fSri^gQ lawp for the benefit of the jury, I do not deem neceaaarT'
*•■•'•'•• to detennine^u I oondMre no each qoeation is involved in this recoid. The
foeetion for the ynj wm, Whether ilavery existed in Canada. So statnte was
ptoduced <»eating or establishing tharinstitntion whioh called for the iiiitorpre-
jtation of the Court From ^e fact that there were laws and doonments in
vhJoh reference was made to staves, or which contemplated a state of sUveiy, it
w« to be infwred that shivery lawfiiUy existed b Canada. That inference w>s
one offoet, to be made by the jury. As the jury have found the foot, whose ex-
dttive province it was to do so, the practice of this Court, now establiriMd for a
number of years, forbids that a judgement should be. reversed, b(Kanse.a verdict
ia agnnst the weight of evid<ince. ;^

Tlk»StaUo/Mi$$ouritU:

—-r-TT- -- ^ Wiuux S. OLAHvnxB, Clerk of the Supreme Court of said State, held at
St, Loius^ certify the foregoing to be a full, true and complete traoscript of the
opinion of said Court, and of the dissenting opinion aforesaid, delivered in the
cause first beforo stated, at the October Term, A. D. 1867, on appeal from the
SL Louis arcuit Court.

In testimony whereof> I hereto set my handand the seal of said Court, at
Office, in St. Louis, this 25th day of December, A. IX 1«67.

WM. S. GLANVILLE, QerL

♦

Vv —

'-mr^

4 OOUR SUPESUEUBK*

XONTBBAL. tS MASS U5K ' ^

Coram Bkbthblot, Asst. J.

* -^ ^ ^ ■ : ■ Natas.

Mortmeau vs. Karrigan, aluu Jrefr£jra»,'fils, et le dit iltam7afi,e({<a« JEerr^an,,
fils, Demandeur en faux vs. le dit Jfinfineatt, D6fendeur en fonx.

7ag«s— <)iMleIMtaitoirenlhiii,I)eiiiaiidaarpriiiolpaI,ii'Mt' pw teimd« rtpttndie an plaidojier te
VteMon prinoiBala^ svant q:iH llnMriptlaQ en tea no Mtt nddA^

Le Difeadenr Karrigan s'inscrit en fiiux contra nn exhibit du Demandeur aprds
Avmr plaid6 & Taction principale et avant que le Demandeur ait r6ponda au dit
phddoyer* Longtemps aprfts l*inscripti(Ni de fiiux, mus avant qn'elle soit vuid4e.
par aucan jugement on autrement, le D.6fobdeur principal vgnifie au Deman-
deur piinoipal une demande de r6ponse de pludoyer k Taction prindpale.

L&rdeesus, le Demandeur prindpai foit motion que dilai pour ripondre au ,
dit pludoyer dn dit D6fendeur lui soit accord^ jusqu'i ee que la dite iiiscriptioii
de &UX soit vuid6e et que cette honora|>Ie Cour y ait foit droit

Motion accotd^e.

ZoMU Bieard, pour le Demandeur princiiMd.'

JHdTajf & iliMfin, pour le D6fendenr principal* ^ ^

SUPEiaOR COURT, 1859.

-sr*-

^1

MONTaBAL; aont JVIIB^ 185»;
CUvi* Smith J. #

^

iftw/oft vi. The Otand Trwtk RaOway GomfuMOf 0/ CaAada.
Hddj-L That Aoommon owrier U "Itable IbraU Um or «Hna«e.«Mnit thU ooadoud miMi A^«»

«JH»«.th.««Ut Of fl«ntaneo«. oo»bu.llp«. to, «» ^^SS IZSIrLSK^

W«toWli«dbe«ii«ioB. |«wii».««Mtai w«^

jwhd on thoi. toB^ p«««nl«fly to th. fcoe of • d«ple ua,M«,^^^S^^i^^

- ^ W*i an action for (Jie recov^iy of £63 ISs. 2fd. cy., Mng th« value of
certain goods delivered to theCSompaoy Defendant, at the Point Levi Station
on the 12th of December 1866, for the parpoae of being forwarded by rail to'
Stanfold, and tfiere delivered .tcf the Plaintiff, but which were not bo delivered •
the Company'a^nt at Point Levi signing a simple receipt therefor contain^
jng an usder^ng to forward and deliver the goods as above.

The Defendant, bendes the g^'eral issue, pleaded, that the goods were so

deliver^ for transport by it. ordinary freight triUns only, which, at that time,

to a.^|i^t.ffii' knowledge, left Point Levi on the Monday, Wednesday wd

Friday on%.,n each week, that, being delivered on » Friday, «hey could not be

despatched before the foUowing Menday, that on Uiat Monday there occurred so

heavy a fidl of snow that the trains of tiie day could not leave, that during the

night foUowmg, the goods were totally destroyed, witiiout &ult of die dUu.

t"h by ».P»'el7 accidental fire which consumed also tiie whole of the Defen-

dantaStahon House at ?oint Levi, in which tiiey were, with «U its other

. contents, to die loss of tiie Defendant in an amount-of at least £20.000- by

«aiioB, whereof tiie Defendant prayed for tiie dismissal of tiie action.

This plea was subssiiuentiy amended by consent, by fhe addition to it of tiie
fiirflieratrerment, tiiat tiirough Ihe year 1806 tiie OombMiy had kept potted
«p at Pttmt Levi and at it. otiier Stations, notio«i whereby it had loade bows
> tte pubhc and to tiie Plaintiff in particubr (who, a. wL dleged. had jiefere
%UMdgoods tobeforwkrded on its Railway on tiie «mie condition.) thit it
wouMnot b^responsible for aooident from delay. <^ccarioned by bad weattier.
or fiom fin^ heat, cold or otiier like caiiMs or homfarot^mj, ^

^rTuTr^*^*^""^^' '"dfl.ePlaintiife'cawmwieontby admisdons
•a to tha dehyeiy and value of die gooda ; he, in return, admittiiv die feot ol .

-jMr.t8fi»wliottydertoyedtii»Fwrt^rtvfftta«oirf[oaiewhw^^

^&#*

V

... fL_

IF-;

\. ;.

«».

^'

/i

SUPRRIOR COURT, 1850^

tv

\^

HtttoD The Defendant ejMkiiwd Mvefal witneaM m to the origin of the flre^ who
Grand nrank proVed, that the fire waa^ flnt Men in the lamp room of the Station, and coold
not be accounted fbr^erwiae, than by the preanmption that the waste in that
roonUad BponUneonBljr wnitod. The Defendant alto proved, that the freight
train had nOt been finrw^ed on the Mondiqr morning in conaeqaeaoe of a snow
storm, bnt that the paasebger train had been despatched by the aid of the only
two engines then at the Boint Levi Station.

At Bnjuite the Defendant fyled copies of the printed eon^dons and notifiea-
tiona referred to in the Defendant's plea as am^ed. These were pcovedto
~- have been posted up for a long time before the firip at the Point Levi and other

Stations, and to have been printed on' the back of the advice notes futnidied
from time to tiide by the Company to the consignees of goods of the arrival of
goods for delivery, and it tras also proved that the Plamtiff had been seen on
: an occasion, previous to the fire, reading the oonditibns and notification thus
printed on an advice note. The condition especially relied on by the Defen-
dant,, was in the following words, " The Company wUl not be accountable for
damages occasioned by delays from storms, accidents or unavoidable'causei^ or
for damages from fire, heat, ^c." ' ' \

Sethw^, for Plaintiflf argued, that the Company \ Defendant had wholly
failed to establish its plea of vi$ major,— let. as to the lire,— It iras in evidence
that the Station honse in which ^the fire occurred was bnilt entirely of wood
that the fire was first seen in the lamp room which was partitioned off in wood
and was liaoreover warmed by a stove,— that in this wooden room, thus waniied|
the Company kept a considerable quantity of waste, a material well known, and'
^inftct proved, by the Defendant's owi^ witnessels, to be most liable tospo.n^ •
taneons combustion, and that the fire conld only be accounted for by the pre-
sumption that the waste had spontaneously ignited. It is quite dear therefore '1
that so far from the fire being the result of a vi$ mayor, it was solely atteibut-»
able to the culpable neglect of the Company, in exposing such oombostibla -
materials, in saoh a quantity, and in such a combustiUe apartment ; 2nd. as to
the snow stom^,— It is not satis&ctorily proved tihat the storm wa4j|6 violent
as to prevent tlie freight train from being forwarded had the CompMiy had' on
hand (as they Were bound to have had) the necessary locomotive power to ^eo^l
% and on tl^e contrary it is evident, from the feet that the passenger train,
which was^espatched at the hour the freight train ought in ordinary coarse to
' liave left, with the only two engines then at the Station, Wfflit through without ,
• accident oV<afflculty, that it was not. the storm, but ratiier the want <rf the
necessary ioccmiQtive power, which prevented the freight train from leaving as
it otherwise would have done. Then as to tiie pretended limitation of liaWlity
<»fUi©Conit>anybyrea8on of certain printedinotices, he submitted aa^ legal
. ]>ropositien, that nothing shlfrt of an absblntJ agreement by the Plaintiff to have
his goods forwqarded on the. terms oontaine4 in such notices^ could make the
Plaintiff amenable to them,— that in the p^Mnt ease, not only was no suck
^^feement proved, but on the oftntrfary the jeceipt, giten fcr llie foods, Which
■was the contract between the partW, epntained no oonditioiur whi^ever iil favor
of tho Company, a»d Was a airttpl^ nndertataig oa its part to t»^ tU grWul> _

./-

<^\

,1

SOPIMOB CODBI', MM.

CiviJ. Art. 1*84 T„ iiv-„ m "^ ' ** '^^ de Com. Art. 109, Code
Defendant would not in a case like thi. k. Lu is ki j ^, , "' *

Pll>OinttAll.-(Alt«rrt,li'„g«^) »• !

Tie defence in this ease rasla on tiro nobis • 7.1 ■«... .i. i

resSfJl'"*^*!^'*'"'^"'^ **^ *^* ^^^-^J-"' «B Common Carrier was

m. PlMnWm M^™, to ft... two g™..* of dribm», mrinUniX. Ike
""TBHriEey ahonM bo ferwuded witlnnl delilr. Tb«t

^

«'

■•■'•'^^ --Vr-^^:"'

972

fiUpEBIOB COURT, 18S0.

Hurtai in thir there wm nttgligence on the paxt of the Defendant, ud therefore » WtAn
<itM4 Atink lity in law to aeooiint for the value of the goods which were deatroyed or
loet to the PlunUff .during thia nnjuatifiable detention; and Sd groand of de.

I for all Ic

fence ; That the liability in law of the common carrier iras for all loaaea except
those occasioned by the act of Qod and the Queen'a enemiea. That thia oom«
mon.law liability oon^d not be restricted by mere general notice,, even if know-
ledge of 8i]fih notice had been brought home to the Plaintiff, which it wae not
That the fire wai the [iresnlt of negligence on the part <4, the Defendant, who
must be held liable in law, and that it was not competent to the Defendant to
limit his liabUity by a^y general notice so as to avoid liability for loesee caused
by negligence. j ' i

As to the first grounjd of defence, that the delay in forwarding the goodsiby
. the snow storm, is one foi^ which the Defendant cannot be held liable, it is iie-
cessary to distingnish. The mere detention of the goods by-the forwarder during
a time of stress of weather, such as a violent snow atorm, cannot of itiMlf render
the carrier liable, provided the 'Carrier exercised a sound and wise discretion-A-
no doubt the carreer is bound to exercise 'diligence in the transmission of th^
goods confided! to his care, but it cannot be conten^ tiiata carrier is boundi>
at all events, to forward goods when it would bcf either dangerous or unwise to
start on the journey. Now^ in a climate such as ours is in the winter months,
it would be manifestly unjust to say that a BaUroad carrier should be compelled
to proceed on his journey in the face of a violent storm which would of neces-
sity.aTjrest him altogether or imgpde him in his joum^'' Some discretion must
be allowed to we carrier, and the law allows^ and jt^tly so, to the carrier the
exercise df this sound tUscretion in carrying safely (he goods confided to his
care./ Their detention by snow storms must necessarily eater into consideration
in settling the liability of Rwlroad carreers in this country, for otherwise it
would be imposing obligations on the carrier wliich sometimes it would be
vrholly out of his power to meet, and to in^poee duties on him which ate not
consistent with the essential and inherent obligaltions of his contract It is a
question of evidence entirely to 'determine whether or not, in not forwarding
tiie goods the carrier exerdaed a sound discretion or not On this occasion, a
violent snow storm arose' which blocked up the road, and so impeded the tiaob
as to jttstifiy a delay nntil the track was cleared, and in so far as the mere de*
lay is concerned, I think the Defendant was justified in not proceeding on his
jonmey. It is no argument to show that a passenger tr^in-was despatched al>
, though with two Engines, and that if a passenger train" could start a fireight
trvn might have been sent on. This does not follow, for there might exist
many reasons for endeavonring to forward passengers, .which wotdd not exist in
respect of freight^ and it is not a question of poesibili^, bnt a question of pra-
dence. In so &r then as the mere fact of the detention is confcemed the Defen«
dant cannot be held liable. But the lialnlity of Defendant ia not an this ease
altered by the detention. For the goods once received by the De&ndanV and
placed on twaid of the can for' tranqwrtation, the carrier ia liaUe dnringihe
neoessaiy detention in the 8|me manner, as if the goods were in jtrooesB of trans*
portation,and this brings me to the point of the defence, that the lose under the

^^

■i

M

SUPERIOR COURT, 1859.

278

' ' " 'I I • .1

sinnnutuicw k not one for which the Defendant onn be held Uable at all in

other word^ that th4 Un^itetioo of liabiUty by the Printed Uoticw in mpeot of

joddenta by fire, ia Uiog on the Plaintifl; ;»nd that the aooident itaelf in

^^^ridni^ aa it ia pretai4M it did, from no fluilt or negligence of the Defendant

and being the resul^ o<Jpevitable accident or tit major, the Defendant is not

liable.. The DefehdaiJt contenda that by the law of Lower Canada, he is

not liable for the Iom of the goods by the fire in qneation : Ist On the ground

that the Printed Noticea restrictedhis liability, and 2nd. 'That it waa an acci-

dent in respect of j»hich no foolt or negligepce can be imputed to him. The

Defendant contended that the strict rule of the English law, which rendered

Common carriers liable for aU lose except that which ^Jma from the Act of

God and the Queen's Enemie^ did not exist in Lower Canada, and'that the

inore indulgent rule of the French law which must be the rule in Canada relieyes

them from aU liability for loss arising from mere casualty, or ineritable accident

or from «M mo/or. ^ ,

By the law of England the rule £m been well setUed from the time of Xd.
Holt, Tide case of Cogga and Bernard, 2 Ld. Raym, B. 909.

AngeUinUyingdowntheprinciplesays; (8.148.) "That a common carrier
la answerable, aa has been already stated, for all lossee which do not fail within
theexceptedcaseaof'theactofGod' ai^d the • King's (public) enemies,' and
with reference to the doctrine of vU major he remarks ; (8. 166) «♦ the teftn vit
maior (superior force) is used in the cirU law in the same way that the words
•• Act of God " are used in common law, and so also is the term eag>ufi^tuitu$»
tt IS true.one or two cases can be found in which there has been' a departure
from this uniform rule. But these cases have formed no precedent fortHe Eng.
Hah Courto» and.the^ hare bee;i oniformly rejected in the United 8tatea Courts,
•nd they have been justly considered as a departure from tho sound principles
of Uw. Moreover, theie few cases on which such dedsions haye been baa
refer to this class of cases, when valuable goode were traiismltted, for the dsuav
pncee of small parcels of no great value, without mention of their valuable con-
tents to the carrier, and notice has been given by the usual posUng up
In the office of the carribrs, that they would not be held liable for the loss of
auch valuable parcels, eontain^igjeweUery and precious stones, unless notieee
.of their contents had been givei and an adequate remnner«tion paid for' trans-
nuiaion. The case cited, and dthe^ which might be cited havete%enceexcln-
Mvely to this class of cases, %H I think none, can be found in whil^ » notice
mtricting liability in case of fire, has been held as binding. This departurtf
from esUblished principle created much inconvenience, and atletgth the statute
11 Qeo.^ and 1 Wm. 4, was ena<^ed which setded the point, and by this
Act in England general notices are therefore declared not to take away the
general liability of carriers.

Atthis present time, therefore, in England ther doctrine is now well MtUed
that a spteial notice and undertaking must be alleged and proved, in order W
Innitthe Mability, incaaes in which a limited liability can be by law set up,
and m casei in wMch no fault or negligence can he imputed to thA namW

*«&*

X-

iiiis principle elso^^btainalD jBHnce^ with tibe exception that tibe <torier k

'■■4*

^

«'-f •- T^* *?*^^";

■■^/

h: L*;

\

H

SUPERIOR COURT, 1889.

Huton

OrandTrank
ItA.00.

4-

not liable, when th« Ion can be fairly impnted to vit mt^or or intvitablo aooi-
dant On this point I refer again to Angell, (S. 148.) Story. Bait, (8. 488,) in
whioh thia principle if laid down.

Th« dootrine on this point in England aod in France ia baaed on the edict of
the Roman Prcetor.

Bnt the English rule it even more atqct in thia reapeot than the Reman law •
for it excludes the carrier from protection in all cases except where the loss has
arisen ftom the Act of God or the Queen's Enemies, whereaa the Roman law
saved the carrier in cases of loss from via ma^or ; this is the only difference in
the two systems, in all other respects they are alike. This principle of the
Roman Law is incorporated into the French^'law, and it is to be found confirmed
in the code do Commerce. In Persil & Croissant, on Commiisionairea p. 181,
and seq., the whole doctrine is well disoossed, and pUinly laid down. A judg-
ment is there cited which was discussed on all the points and finally decided in
tho Cour de Cassation. Tho. decision there clearly established the principle
that the Carrier is liable for loss by fire, whiqh is not the result of v%$ tm^,
or o/ inevitable accident, and where the carrier could by no possibility exercise
any control, and this decision also equally establishes the &ot that between the
English and French Systems there is no difference except in this, that the oai^
rier is relieved in the oases of vis mq;or. This view of tho case has been sano-
tionedt hii^bnr Ftovboial Court of Appetl in tho case of Hart & Jones, Stuart's
Reports,^. 089. \^

This distinction thei^ between the tw^ systenu of law leads to the considera-
tion of the meaning of the words vUnuyor or inevitable accident On this point
Angell say% as before shown, that the expression vii major in the civil LAw is
ilsed in the same way that the words "Act of Clod " are nsed in the dommon
Law. The true principle is that the loss occurred ^m some cause in which the
act of man cannot be traced, for if the act of map be traceable mther in some
act of commission, or some cause of omission, wfai^ involves an act of negli-
gence or fault of any description, then it is no longer a case of pit nuyor or
inevitable accident, for the>law presumes that such loss might have been avoid-
ed. vTo suppose that because a loss could not be prevented simply from the
fiict of not being able to prevent the loss, althoi^h the eausd of that loss is to
be traced up to some source having its origin in the act of man, is a departure
from true principle. Tbe case of irresistible force supposes sdme act indepen-
dent of tho act of man, and whiohiao prudent foresight or care on the part «f
the carrier could by any possible ^eans prevent. Thus in the present instance
the origin of the fire has not been e^ablished in evidence, for the evidmce of
the D^elidant goea merely to the effect, that in the opitiion of the witaeasea it
arose from spontaneous combustion in the waste room. Thk however is mertf
opitiion. It is not said particularly to have lunsen from that cause. But sup-
posing it to be so proved, it simply proves that an undue amount of combuati-
ble matter was left in the room, and that it 'therefore ignited ; noir it is quite
pOBsiUe the fire under the cioumatances could not be prevented, bnt surely the
cause of the fire conld have been prevented. This is an ad of negligence and

SUPERIOR ObUBT, 1889.

U16

' ^ — - I t

jJtlll*S*f*^ 7T r"^-"^-- I' '- ^^ 'h* duty of th. pT«>n employed

<«on. XT,, owner i. bound to pomm •uffldont .kiU ia the um of the yehiolee
Qf tr.n.porUaon employed by him in hi, cdling to ensure «foty in their um.
Ifitbenece««rytouwoiUand other m.teriiU. in the running of the lUU-
rjL rv"*^" r**'"'*^ ^^ '•'™ '» ^^ »"*»•• ** •• «<>«^'y «'^«*>>ent on the

mulJoZw- K rf i^ "^ °**'"*"'^ ' '""* °f '"®<''«»» •''"» "<» «"« which
tlt.^'lir;?^'''' r*~' ''^•' •*'' «''» department.* The merZ!
ou. in the mean, of tr.nei»ort.tion, and if there be d«.ger. that the Jrior

to ^umulate which po«o«e. in itwlf the element of de.trucUon, and a fl»,
onane., H „ to my mind negligence which render, the carrier chargeable wiS

hwriJ!:^. *"ft' «;'*°^'— •.'fa«-'-ofth.irehMno^b<ln
•how^ ,a evidence, Jii^in .uch a c«o the law impute, negligence to the carrier

S"il"T„Z"l'1lf^ The on Jof proof Uthr^^Ta

property of other, can accou\«ti.&otorily for the lo«, the law impute, to
^m negligence, and con«H,„\uy liabUi^ The Defendant alio T^nd^

Am c«, the Defendant oould not be held liable. But luimitUnTthat tie

S^li^^r? t,' """*??' •""* *^ P"^*^ ooul4,di«Aarge the Defendant from
""^^ndttff L'Ta^"-' t^I^efeni^^Add^ on contract,

effect From|»e preceding remark. I draw the following concUmions.* *

eqSXJt'n^: "' of Lower Canada n. m^'or. and inentable aeoid^t «e
th e'iiSy!*"' ^°''''***' ''^ theexiatonce of general noUce doe. not restrain

but w^e .1! ! r"?'" ''•"o»«*»^ byi* m^Vor inevitabfeaccident,

'iTftriJofi^^u^^^^^^

negligence. '••'"««i, ue Jaw preanme. that it wae caurad by

lluitoa

* The learned Jadi
^- Onyot. Pacta.!

I ■• «» TO. ineei
1 ■• ^. TwHI I

20drNii7476, Vl^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^'^^'^S*^^

;»•.•'«.

. \

'A.

flft

SUPB&IOBr COURT, 1859.

e. That Mj itipulation. m«d« by Um Defendaat not to b« h«ld liable for lot*

q*ygV«a> by flr* rwolting from the n«glif«no« of the Defendant either proved or implied

ia illegal and cannot reetrict the liability of Defendant I am therefore of opTnioa

that the Defendant maat be held liable for the lo(|a oomplained of aad J^ndgment

ahouM go againat Defendant.

The following was the Judgment, aa reooided by the Conrt

** The Court • • oonaidering that the said Plaintiff hath fblly eatablished
the material allegatiooa of his taid action; and further oonaidering that the
■aid deftadant hath failed to prove by legal and •ufflcient evidence, the eiiatenoe
of any tpecial contraot or undertaking between the laid Plaintiff and the laid
Defendant, or of the knowledge by the Mid Plaintiff of the exiatence of any
general notioo, by which the Defendant Mught to limit hie oommon law liability
aa a oommon carrier, or of any aooeptation of euoh limited liability by the uid
Plaintiff, of any act done by the eaid Plaintiff, by reaaon of which he can be
oonaidered to have oontraojled with the laid Defendant, ao aa to limit the generat
liability of the aaid Defendant, aa apch common carrier, by reaaon of which or
by law, the eommoa law liability of the aaid Defendant, as common carrier can
in thia case, be limited or reetrained, and farther considering, that by law the
Defendant ia liable for aU loas or damage, except that occasioned by the Act
of 6od, and by the King's enemies, and by inevitable accident and m major;
and further considering, that the said Defendant cannot be exempted by agree-
ment from liability for any Act, or from loss and damage caused by the negli-
gence or fonlt of the said Defendant ; and further considering, that the loss is
question waa occasioned by the negligence of the said Defendant, and was not
[ docaaioned by inevitable aooidtat or nt major, and for which the said Defendant

ia liable in law to indemnify the aaid Plwntiff, the court doth condemn the aaid
Company, Defendant, to pay to the aaid Plaintiff** * * *

Judgment for Plaintiff.

JSefAune <6 2>imifctn, for Plaintiff.

Cartter <&^er(Aefo<; for Defimdani

R Maekay, Cottnael.
(B.B.)

Hon.— A similar Judgment was rendered ia a «ase Ho. UKS; 8. 0. llonntala vs.
The Orand Trunk Railwajr Oompaay of Oanadc; the only diflbnnee" between the two
eases being that no knowledge whatSTsr as to the notice, was brought heme to the
^1 PUdntUTifr the case of Mountain.

%

H ONTUAU am MAT. 18W. .

/Coram Birtrblot, k.i, W

Mtrritt 1%, Lyntih.

Ayai^— NonoB or Pbotist — ^Motiohb tor Niw Trial ahd Jvoemvr

iHM» otefamte twreifieto.

Hdd ^-Th•t tte rigBStnra of a ptnoB, not «|M pwM nor nibieqaent holdar under tha piVMh writtaa
in Uaak «voD a fNoisiMJty not% nv be Qoiulto«d an MNrf; and that the rfpMMwr d'wMi; ia >
saAeaaibisiMtaBtitlsdtoBstliosofprotait. y

TlMtf the iM to ba drtonidiisd. whaihtr loah riiBBtnra in blank ahatt bo talM aa aa indomn^
-' aBanl,iaampM<rtobedatemiiMdbythaJni7><tomthao*idaMeaddeeadatth«triaL

the div oinrUflh vapdiet waa nei»ded.

SUPERIOR COURT, Has.

tTt

Thu Mtion WM IniUtoUd on th* 17th NovtmlMr, 1868, to Noov«r tho ram
of X04 I6cl0d^ balaaoo of • promiMorj nou in tbo following Umu:—

" Ono (1*7 ttom daU I promiM to pay D. B. IferriUi or bMMr, DiBAly-flftt
" pound* and tweire ■hillingt curwnoy, for value i»o«i»ed, on neooHnt of wood
^ for the OnUrio and St, Lawr«ao« StMmboat Compiuiy in the vaar of 18«e.

" Montreal, Jnly 3Ut, 1887. I

(I«do™«,, "0,..Lx.o«.» ^•*' •^- '••»«««•»•"

The plaintiff alleged in his declaration, that on the 81st «f July, 1857, tha
defendant wu indebted to htm in the sum of £9S 12s. Od, for cash th«retofor«
adranced to him, and that being so indebted he procured from W.T.Barron th«
aid promissory note, made payable, at the request of tha defendant, to the
plaintiff or bearer one day after date, the note being given by Barron for a debt

» dut» by the said Steamboat Company (whose agent Barron was) to the defendant
And that the defendant, having procured the note from Bs^rron, retained it in

• hif hands till after it became due, and then indorsed and delivered it to the
•plaintiff. That the defendant so indorsed and wrote his name upon the 'said
note to secure the payment thereof to the plaintiff, and that Jthe balance sued
for still remained due and unpaid. a^^

The defendant pleaded two exceptions:— , .

1. He denied that the note was delivered to the plaintiff after due, and alleged
that he indorsed the note under the condition of ordinary indorsements, and
that the plaintiff was bound to protest the note at maturity and to give him
notice of iu dishonour, which he had not done. And that, even supposing the
note to have been delivered after due, the defendant's indorsement would not
legally bind him.

2. That supposing, from the nature of the indorsement, that formal protest
and notice were not necessary, still the plaintiff w^boimd to uaeaU possible
diligence to recover the amount of the note flrom the md^er, bat that the plaint
had not adopted any legal proceedings igainlat the m|||K^,. That at the date df
^e note the Steamboat Company and Barron, theif iM|were solvent, and had
linoe become ins&lfent, so that he, the defend«i< was deprived ofhiareoourw
against them. That, by eommeroial nsage anjT by law, the plainUff was bound
to use reasonable dUigenc^ against the make/of the note; that he had not done
80, and fats action vaa therefore unfounded. \

The defendant by his pleM made opUon of a trial by jury, and • written
consent to • general verdict was fyled by the parties.

It was admitted by the arOeulalion dt/ait$ andt a^sweiv thereto, that Lynch
procured the note from Barron for a debt due by the silid Steamboat Company
to I'jrn^ ; that the defendant, at the time he indoiaed 1^ note, was indebted
to th« plaintiff in the amount spedfi«d in the note; and ^t from the ISth of
August to the 8th of September, 1857, the pMntiffpoUected^ftom the aaker of
the note £41 8s. Od. cy<

On the 16th of March, 1889, the cause was tried before Ifr. JusUoe Smitb
and a special juiy^mpoeed of merohanti and traders, one Ulf ^pealnpjr th«

■•ntM

*■.

•mi

SuTtBj,)^ chaiged the jury as follows:-^

■-■*1 :•

St8

' dfc *

8UPKW0R COURT, 1M9.

MWhm

ft.
LrMb.

.'.'

->..

- Tl^, th.t ho will pay ih. holdor o1 the not^ If the«dk«r Wlto dTw t
maturity proT..le<l duo notice of prote.t bo girod to him. The pe«on who
dign. or Indole. „ aval undertake, to pey. Jf the penK,n g«.r.ntoid doc „o,.
The undortiAlngl.unoonditlon.l,.nd no noUco of proteet i. in that cu»

: , -The noU in thi. o.uw wm m«le by Banon, payable to|Merritt, the plAlntlff,

« 1 ^T* 71 I '^' **•*•♦ '"^ ^^*'*'' »•'• ^'"'''"♦'«^». '''«'« »''- "••no on
the back of It. rxK>k.pg merely at the note and the .Ighatnre. upon |t. the

pwHiumptlon would be thjt Darron owed Merritt, and garo him hi. note for
"the amount, and that Lynch put hi. name on ft to guarantee the payment of
it to the plaintiff, tbere being no relation |>etween the partie. to .upport any
other preaumption. In thi. view of the oaM the indofNment would bo oonri.
« dei»J an aw/. But tho allegation, of the plaintifT. de<;la|«tion tend to' con- '
" tradiot thi. pre.umption. Tho plaintiff allegcH that tho note wa> given for a '
" debt due by Barron to Lynch, aiid waa delivered to Merritt by Lynch for a
" debt due by Lynch to him. There i. no collateral Evidence to .hew what
" Lynch', intention wa.. There was no debt due by Barron to Merritt. How
•♦ then, coQld Lynch sign for tho parpoM of guaranteeing Barron'., note f Wai '
"•there a new contract, changing the original contract, .o a. to make Barron
Uie debtor of Merritt, and Lynch the mere guarantibr for tie payment of that
debt (of which no evidence whatever i. brought forwardX op mu.t we not
« under the oiroumttance., rather presume that Lynch did not intend to iifdorM
." aa Monnty, but that he put his namo on the note (he btiing then indebtod to
•* Memtt), mtending only to be bound vi an ordinary indorser of negotiable
•• paper I The fact that Lynch', name js not in the body of the note make, ito
« difference ; the note was payable to Wrer, and therefore negotiable, and this
•* made Lynch the legal holder of the not^ in the ume manner as if Merritt*.
" name had not been in the body of the note.

•♦ Whether Lynch intended, under the cirountotancee, to .ign a. indoner or
« as avid, is a question for the jury to determine.^ If they come to tho ooiiolnuoa
" that he signed simply with a view to guarantee the payment of Barron's note,
•• they will find for tho plaintiff, as no protest or notice of protest wasnedeMuiry.
« If on the contrary the jbry ate of opinion that he signed as an ordinary endor-
" ser, they will find for the defendant, as in that case a protest aqd notice thereof '
" were required by law to charge him as indoner."
The jury gave a ^erdiot for the plaintiff for tho amount demanded.
On the leth of Maroh, the third day of theensuingterm, the defendant gave
notice to plaintiffs attorney thaf he would ipflive for a new trial on the 28nd of
Maroh, and on the 21st of March, in %.i|t)M«be of plaintiff . attorney, fyled his
motion for a ntfw trial, which was received by thAp)urt, subject to all obieotioiit.
On the 22nd the plaintiffs coansel objected to the recepUon and hoarinprof MJd

\'

* ^ .

SUPmiOB OOUBI^ IIM.

tb. deft»d«.i'. Bu>tion To, .^w w^Ji P'*'"*',^'- obj*.tU«. imuI «j.rt*l
pWntir. motion for jodgmwu ^ ""^^•^ MltKlioiitoa «po„ u,«

■abMqMnt to It. diUa. '"■•'•««' «<» &dof»d to th« pUlirtiff on • d^y

I th.mtariwi,.SrkL T"^*''~'^°'''■•^■»toMJn^'
indTect:^ ^ . *, ^ ™^*'^^"^«l>y tl.t»«Weiid«.t.«Ud<

2Jartjo..fl«t.tob,lool«Kl2ttrtoie^^^^ iThe

/indo««nW«ui^utoSd"p^?ri^TrL.^ a.^ „a,JJ;

\\

lA.

r

1 ';

—\

-^ i)"

.V , -■ ■

Mmm
Igrnui.

■f-

l.v -x

'--/ .-,

380

SUPERIOR COURT, 16M.

'•*

^

\ holder ;'bnt the efleot of the aval is mora extended than that of the indonement r
iteraatea ylitUirM dtpUin droit and randen the aigner liable to all the obliga-
tioM of the party fbr whom it waa giren, whether auoh party be the maker,
endoqer oraoceplor of the bill or note, anleai the contrary ia clearly stipnhted.
(1 Ctenget * Merger, pp. 612, S18, Nofc »— 12. PardeMOi, Noe. 894, 398.
1 Saiiiy, i. 8, cap. 8, p. 27.)

"The nota hen waa evidently not signed by Lynch fcr the purpose of transfer-
ring It to Merritt, for Mwrilt's name is mentioned in the note as payee^ the note
being moreover payable to bearar. Lynoh's signatora was o|ily put to guarantee
the payment of the note, and the efleot of putting it there waa to render him
liable with B*ron ao/Mfa«r«m«nf.

«*The next question, taking the note to he pour cMffe/, b aa to whether there
was any necessity of protesl and notice of protest to th«4efendant. It waa con-
tended by the deftfidant that the Ordonnanee ofl^lB regnlated the matter in
his fiivor : that b^ the 82nd Artida tiie party signing jwitr a«a/ Aould be asd-
T^ljUtMA to ihe iiidoraer, and waa entitied to notice of pNleat Bat in answer
to thia it is 01^ necessary to say :->FiisUy^ That thia Hjitdonnance haa never
bean held aa ejiregiateied in thia country. Secondly, It w«b not received even
in Fhmoe aa being declaratory, M dklientoirt, in aU i«i dttHHB ; and Savaiy^ at
the page cited by tiie defendantfa eonnsel, Toll, p/sps, ipMks of the contra-
dictory daciaioAs on this snljeot by the tribonala in FMnee previona to the
Ordomntet otfl9l9, which may therefore be looked npoa-aa fixing tha jurit>
pnidenoe on a point formeriy in contravenqr* ^

« The nvthooty cited from Merlin, to. Atat, p. 206, 208, «iid S Bavary, p. 188,
an to ba taken with reaerve, becaise t&ey comment npoii/th« article of the
(MoMMiiiMoriefS. 4 i ^ ,. .

•• Th% jtnisp^enoe of lower Canada doea not aeem to bsva iWipM the nde
of tlie otaonnapoe^bbt rather to be in conformity with the 142iid Article of the-
fod*ii tmmtm, which binds the dommrJPanal by the awae UMilQa a^ tha
drawer and th« indoner, and leaTea him the right of using IhiMMnoea only
which eovld b^ raised by tiie principal debtor. (See, outiiia wMfj^ Perril,
iMrt if Clm^^» 229.. Potiiieir, Chmg$, Noa. 122. 128. Gtiyiot, V. ^K
p. f 09. Alio tin .case of Fariaeao, a^ellant, «Bd duiktte, re^ndent, hi appeaF
ftom thtf'Gireait Qpnrt, and dedded by Jni^MMa Day and Smatii, qsotad t^r tin
plaintiffa ooniMel. \Also the caae 10 lionisiana Report^ page 874, Smitii «a£
Gorton, whei«i under anahigoua dreumstances, the signatore waa heM to ^

"Aa toi* P<**"' wused, that flie jury decided aa to whetiier the aignM«««»
waa aM-ilKiiMtinn hr an wmt, it ia not necessary to giTO any opidon now.
The juy&ui^ f general Terdict, witiiont speinaUy deteriddng tiie signatara
to htTv been put fwrnr aval; bnt if tiiey had so found, that wodd deariy ndt
be a gKnmdi%Mipport of a motion for judgment mm oUftmfe vmdkin, dtiionj^
it tt^t iMTe'been rdaed <m 4 motion for * new trial Bnt I wodd beindined
tondopt the doctrine to be/oond in Gone^t and Meiger— and in tiie cas» of
BMiOnai^gorton, that tliie jnry, bring tha^ jadgw^gt Ag jMlr~(tQ ^i»» J^

expiesnona of Qftiiiet aqd Meiger, • Lesjvget du/ait ont i «e« igwd w ptm-^ ■ j{^^,^ ^^^

u.

y*f,

SUPERIOR COtJRT, 1850.

*A

*8l

My from the evidence and the clroameUmoTwheA-ni T ^'^ *°

to tS^^. V* T! • "'"•' "^"'^On of wcord by the defendwt'. ,J^wer
to the «rt,cuUt.0D of ikoU (No. 1) tht the defendant wm indTted toZ
pUinWr m i!95 12.. for cfr .dv«ced. Articulation, .nd ,J1 ^^1 No i
^mu that the note wa. endon«d and delivered in con«de«IioT7thfa ^i^
Here we have of record an expre» admiwion of a debt and ttrt ^e .1
delivered in conrideration of the debt. - - "^t, ana that the note wa.

Looking, therefore, upon the .i^atore of the defendant as an a^ .„J i--
of opinion alw that, according to the jurimradinco of tW» -k ^ ^ ^"^
.^o»««r«ra«./forthedrawer6f a bill'^h"?arerlf A^^ ^''"! *^*

whether he;.ign. on the ^k of the in.llZt olr^ttL^ ^'V
|ant of notice of protert ; that conwquentiy theri w«.ToSHC^ - **!
the plaintiff, the motion of the defenSit mLtZZ7^S!.A^^^ P"* °^
. upon the plaintiff', motion." °"*"""* '«"J««t«J. adjudgment entered

5. IT. 2>onnon, for Plaintiff. J«»dgment for i»lamtiff.

i2. Za/7amm«, Connael.
^tre, Daoutt et Doutre, for Defendant.
JK flf/uarr, Connael.
■<«.w.D.) / •

" AoVBOBITna Oinn> OV UBALV or PLAnmn \ m %.

mnit b« n»d. within four daj. after verdtot^]^L^»,*^* "'**"'"' *>' "* «^
Jone., 4 Me^on ft Webby, WM;lSi ;7 A^'^l*"' '• * "' T'«>»»" '».

a.IawhatcM..jndg«Mt««a\*S{^i^«l v.

W.O, 767}, 3 a«toon'. DlgwH^or ' ' ™*' *'•• *«« T"- V«gh«^ I Blng!;
8., That deftndantf. indoi^ent ia to be tonOAm^ .- I , .

Story, BUH m. 300 aad Z^, i (i?«t^S/"'^'^ '''»*^ ••Cl3a«,dl33
Ke. 8-i3,Sm.thv..GortoTlo L^SCiX'p 3^^^^^ """• »•'• »"•"»•

«ap6rlor Court. Montr«J. AprU l^JuKV CsLiSl' "•• ^'^•*»^ '^»- «*
Tidd'. Poetic;, pp. 9a8-W81 ' ^'^^'^' P«36«; 3 St,«ge, p.8737»

Mmrim

r

m

IP

382

STTPEBIOB COURt, 1850.

M9am

'■\- '•• ■
~\ Ijooh.

.\

-^

2. Definitioa de !'•? al t—Bwwj, toI, 9, p. 84 ; I Qoagot * Msrger, to. asof, p. 813,
No. 3 ; 1 Nongalw, Lett. d« €luu>g«, No. 49S. '

3. L'andosaement ne peut'fttre pr^aomtf nn ayal :— 1 Nongnier, Noa. 49f— lUO.

. 4. Si raral a 6\4 •ouBcrit aprds I'^ch^ance, il n^y-a-pas Bolldarittf :— 1 Nougnier,
No. 618. *

5. Necemittf de protAtiba an molns de diligenoei :— 3 Bavary, pp. 13S and aeo^—OjlO ;
1 Barary, p. 205 1 Merlin, Qoaat. de Droit, to. aval, Additions to. aval, p. 200—808 ;
Story, Prom. Notea, Noa. 460-473, and Notea Jnaqn'i, 477 ; BoBjii, BUla and Notea, pp.
37 and 30, eaa da Grant Ta. Yaagban i Story on Oontracta, No. 873 ; Oonget * llerger,
p. S17, No. 20 tn >tM.

ROBBBBOOKB. atn OOroBBStl866.
Corom DAT J., MXBBDITH J., Shobt J.

Ingham r, Kirkpatrkk.

HeM,— lliatinoMgrvaid toaoontiaetorlnadTanoeonaoopimtof the oonddeiatioa of a oontnwt ftar
building canno^ieoorendlMM^bjordinaiT action of Amunpilt. <

Thia was an action for. the reoovery of the snm of £62, The aotion waa in
the ordinary form of an action of aaBompait, the* declaration setting forth the
common counts. '

The defendant pleaded that (he snm claimed by the plaintiff was paid to him,
defendant, as part of the connderation for the building of a hoose by ddendant
for Plaintifi; but he did not allege that he had fulfilled the obligations ander>
ti^Eeii by lum.

The evidenbe adduced by tlie KuntaiBr <»on«8ted of reoeipta ngood by the
defenduDt^by which it appeared t)iat ti^Q inoii«y aooght. to ba Te«QTei«d hf4
been paid in advaboe aa p«ri.(^ (ha cpasideratioa of tho ooirtrBot pl«ad«d by
defendant The Iwt waa idao eatabCahed that ihe defendaat had done Tecy little
of the work. ^

Sanlfimrti>t plaint, argued tb»)i ijlit >roof wa» sufB^nt to eptttle the
plaintiff to jui^ent. I^e defcodimt did sot even all<|ge tbat ih^ work wUch
ha had midertf^Esn t<^do had been peifoneri^ ]ie had . riaoeived n^mom v^
BBDQr fion .tb« ptmtiiB^ ivw tlM iutli of his fiilfiUii^ hii costnMfc M ^^
bidftUed to do so, thf pi»int|VJb«d Aright loreeovor back the aam&advMfled.

iKfdU^ for d(rfBBdaBt. The aetioii of aaBiimprit is based npon a proailte
express pr implied. In this case -bo promise such as is idledged in the common
counts iu the dedikratioa lias been proved. The defendant had nndertaken by
a written contract to build a house for tha plaintiff. Bis liability towaida tha
j>Iaii}tiffw«s(a ^i^ ^f^^ °^ ^ 1^*7 ^^ ponfBj adyanoad. T!ie only
Action to wUdi the pbiotiff ,^«| aatiUed- was. an aetion of dBatagea4>r noa-{Mi^
tbnuBBceof'^a work. - .._..,._:■.,. ..:_^,:..:....,,.;7--^._.

Acbon uisuuBsed.-

^iSctniorn & J3rooA»^ attorneys for naintiff, ~

JKtefti^ attorney for Defendantr

(t. w. b.)

■^

SUPSBIOBCOI
M.7. 18M. *"'•"* I"* fcr J*B.««i« *«»*»«i wirn^ ft, 1^

W with ft, ft«k.,„^ rfTc»l i w. rf a.« dMi.^a.Jb.rf^

'»n*to*mc7p.,8,..,; C.™S'^°°- .*'"™^*'•1'«■«.P■
nngalaxnponattorneyB. '^**** ^^ * 1* Vict, oh. 87, impo-
A i^boeimne;^ contra. >

'^^'^^^^^ ^e-leof peremption ispe.

previously »o d^. ^ °°' wpresented by attorney. The Court ui

^. 1^. 3W^ Connaelfor Plaintiffl,
^ -«a«fottitf ?;; for Defeadaatr- —

Rule deeUred abflolat^

v

ff.W.T.)

f

fl84

OOUB SUPSRlEmUB; 18S9.

.V

V

MOHTUAiii so jvqr UN.
Coraim BiKTaator, J.

HcMT
Jac«>-Oael'Mtioii«ii«pwrtlaa da Ums doit Mr* pnrMa duu to diftriol oft tat pwttti nrttov

Ls Denumdereaae ayant institute one action en siparaUon de biens oontra Is
Dtfendeur son mari, devant la Cour Suptrieure siAgeaiht 4 Montr6al, dans le
district de Montreal, en assignant le D6fendenr qui se trojifidt momentuAment
en. la oit6 de Montrial, proc6da contre lui par difaat; U prenve ayant i\k r6-
gdiirement fcite, b cause fi^ inscrite au mfirita et somnise it la d^on drli

Le 80 juin 1889, la cour a renyoyi cette acUon sur le princfpe que oomme
elle tendait & changer Wtot dvij d^ la I>enumdereBBe, el|e furait dft Atre inten-
ts dans le lieu de leur domicile. ',, ^

Le jugement est motiTi comme suit :— 1^ cour aprAs a^oir entendn la Deman-
deresse par ses ayocats, le dfifendeur'ayant fait dtfaut, bainin6 la procidnre
et avoir d61il)6r6. OonsidArant que les parties en cett* cause ont contraoU
nuriiige ^ Tlois^ftiviAres, district des Trois-KviAres, qui a 6t6 depuia et est
enoore leur domicile de manage, et que Taction de U DeAanderesse qui a pour
but de changer son 6tat devait Atrft intentie dans le district ou lee parties ont
enet avaient leur domicile comme snBdit,a r^nvoyft la Demandereeae de sa
demande, poijr se ponrvoir dans le district des Trois-Rividres.

2i(»/renoyc «« Paptn, avocats de la Demanderesse.

ff.B.L.) ' '

. v;.

vA. i.

n-

COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1869.

286

IN APPEAL. '

*BOM THB 8UPBB10E COUET. DI8TBICTOF MONTHBAL.
MONTREAL, 7th JUNE, 1889.

Coran. LaFontainb. Bart., C. J., Artwm, J, 5.va., J., Mbbbditb, J.

.'CnAVXA.Ji.fPU,i,Hiruth0 Court b.lov>J
. ■ ji,o Appellant.

, *'A8«ON,rZV«kto»«i»rt*Cbi»rtMo«fcf^

/.^ „ Bc»pondent. ^

y WITNBSS— COMPBTENOT. V

Jhe circumstonces under «hich tlm question arose, are «ated at length in
he report of the caae, 2 Jurist, i«ge 216. The Judgn.e„t having be „appl^

IZ' u" T "*; '"^'^ '" "PT ^^ *''« •*'"°« Counsel ; and in mI? te,^ •
, 1859. th« Court of Appeal confirm^ the Judg.nent of the Court Itelow -

Meredith, J., delivering the opinion of the Court, said • '

/a««l,gbleforadebf, ,s a competent Witness to prove (hat a third Z^ln
a. a Copartner, jointly liable with the-Jfor such debt. ^ '

It appears that William W. Snaitb and William S. BalV by a notarial agree-
meat bea»ng date Uie 2Ist day of May 1865. entered int^x co-pale«Jfp as
Grocprs, under the firm of Ball A Co.. f^r ihaperiod o(^^y^,^^!Z
from the first day of May then instant. , ^'™"''** '**'*''*•'"«*■

Ball A Co., carried on business for some raoDl^s, and Mvinjr become in«nl

rcit^^"'"*H".r.'r" '-; been sued f^r a de't con'tr^r/B U
* Co, on the ground that he was a dormant partner in tfiat firm
SnaiUi (one of the member* of Ball & C^.,) wasexamined as a witness for the

refernnite. the firm of Ball A Co, w«. <jonipo«„l of Ball andSnaith. yetS
by. yerbarag«,ement between Ball, Snaith and the Defendant, the £ wa.
Emember of theirm of Ball & Co.. and was to receive one thiri o^TpJts
to be made by that ooncemr »""'pronra

The evidence of Snaith tending to establish the liEbility Qf the Defendant
wa. taken,. ubjeot to an^bjection made by the Defendant, and that 1;^
hEViDg been rejeotod by the Judgment appealed from, we now ha,^ to adiud?
CEte apon ita admiuibiKty. • "" «ave lo adjudi-

The question thua raised ia one of great iniportonee, and considerable diffi-
cj^^. but af^r giving to it Uie best consideration in 5 p^^^^^
think the Judgment id the Court below i« right.

^7!?.ST?Af:?!r^*'"^'^''*"^ *• •»***' oontribato totLl;

I'

I.

«<:■

%.;

t ■■■■',

286

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1 860.

Clwpman

vs.
Mmwiu

Snattli ami liiill tlio amount lie may be compelled to pajrthe Plaiutiff, it Ulay
be aiisweroil that if the Defendant be condouined he will (even as between Mm
and tlio witnoxH) bo liable to contribute, unless he can ahew he wai not a partiior
in the firm of Hull & Co., whereas' if the action be dismissed the Dfifiuulant
will not bo liable to contribute unless Ball <fii Snaith can prove that he tccu a
co-partntTi — Snaith thoiefpro even' according to this view of the case is interest-
ed in iiidiii}? tiio riainlift'to recover a. judgment a<;ainst the Defendant, because
Buch a jiid;^ni(Mit by establishing /)rtmd facie a liability against' the Defondantj
and placing him in the same position as Snaith, has the effect, oven as between
Snnith and the Defendant, of shifting the burden of proof, from the former to tno
latter.

The learned counsel for the Appellant cited three English ciises, namely,
Blrtckett and Weir, Fawcett and Wrathall, and Hall and Cunon, in which a
person admitting himself to be liable for a debt, as a popartnor, was held to be
a competent witness forthe Plaintiff to prove that the Defendant was also liable
as a Copartner for the same debt; and con^tidering the great importance of the
question raised in this case, I think it may bo well to refer to tho leading fu-
tures, as wqII, of each of those cases, as of some other casor^ importance cilp
at tho argument ; and I deem it thfi more important to do so because although
the amount involved in the present case is not very large, yet a judgmem
maintaining tho present Action, would, in effect, ' make the Defendant liable foi ;\
the whole of the debts of the insolvent firm of Snaith and Ball. , K

The first case in the order of date cited by the Appellant was Lockhart, %\
Graham (1st Strange 35.) * , \

In this case there were three obligors to a bond, and tho action being brou^t
ag.tinst one of tho obligors, another of them was allowed to be a witness /to.
provq. the execution of tho Ivorid.' I will not comment upon this case because it
is tjie authority upon which York' v. Blott, the next case cited by the Appellant,
was decided, and the observations I propose to make upon York r. Bloti will
be equally applicable to Lockhart v. Graham.

York v. Blott, (6 M. <fe S. 71) Chitty's Collection 9Sl.

In this case one of tWo makers of a promissory note, was adniitted as a wit-
ness for the Plaintiff, to prdve thb signature of the other, on the authority of
Lockhart v. Graham (just cited), the reason givcju being, that if the Plaintiff
recovered against the Defendant, the witness would be' liable to the Defendant
for contribution; and if the Plaintiff failed, and that the witness bad to pay
the whole, the Defendant would be liable for contribution towards him.

^he point decided by this case is now too firmly settled to be questioned, but
I may observe that according to the principles of the French law the witness
wouldIthink.be deemed interested. ^ _' ,

The supposed balance of .interest seems to me to be arrived at in piirk v.
Blott by assuming at genuine the signatare of the Defendant which he„had'
depied. If the witness spoke truly, that is, if the signature of the Defendant
was genuine the witness w^s disinterested, but if he spoke falsely and that the
signatare of the Defendant was forged he was, I thii^ interested. By paying

A-

„:v_-^ .

fcv

■--,/s-

COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1869.

287

■ ' ■'' - I - ■ '

upon his own evidortce, (w to wibrogation. boo 3 PhilH™ 1 1 1 i lo \ • .u

force the Defendant to contribute to the ZltoTllo debt wi„1 "■' "^^

^rther evyenco^ «-.n.

• ; \ei\"ZciL*'' n""''"^' *!*^ '" ^°* "• ^'°" '' '» ">^»t''oned, that the wit- •

, . ";'«»«J'7''«'f<l»'«»ownrign«ture at the same time that h^ . -■

himself as he proved m h« own favor, thus as it were balancing his i„S«,t

whereas in the present case the liability of the witness is PH..hIl« Vi k ' '

authantio d.d. so that this evidence. alLughJ^^^^^^^^^^ x •

mw//"" TV]'*; *■■'' "^*''° *'*''^^ "«•«« •" ''••'"h the evidence of a col ' ^^

pa^n was adm^ted for the purpose, already mentioned, and refer to BiLkeU
V. Weir, SBapnewal&CresBwei.ass. This was an »,.f5nn ft.- « """"^e"

<leniig the Judgment of the Court, observed • «• It {. <.«;^ tu * .i • .
Mr. Justice By>y observed that the witn^s to a certain eTf«nf h.A

partner. But it must be Vomembered that the admission of the witness w«.

Thoc«8eofJWcettv.WrathalI(2 Oakland Payie, 806) wm cited bir «,/
^n.e^c<nm^eAppe.|,n^

■.^Ic^

'"T'W^.

%

S88

OOURT Of QUEEN'S BSNOH, 1859.

'I

MrVicOR roDdered " for preparing brioft fbr counsel to attend before the Cornmi»-
*' Btoner, on bohall'of the Defendant and a person who was in copartnership

with him, when they had beconie bankrupt" It appeared that separate bills
h^ been delivered tQ the D<;fendant and -the other partner. „ a

The latter who had paid his bill, was called as a witneu for the Plaintiffli
The I)ufendnnt,objc-otod to his testimony on tho ground of interest Pollock
br PlHintiff iteted "that in a case from the Norlbern Circuit,, the Court of
^King's Il|9nch a few days previously had decided that if a contract is joint,
" and only one is sued, if there be no plea in abatement, the party who is not
" sued is a competent witnoKs ^ven to prave the Defendant's liability." The
Repd|-ter adds merely, Abbott, C. J., disalloi^od tho objection.

In \this case it seonis that the services sued for were rendered after the
Defendant and the witness had become bankrupt ^ k

They\wore therefore no longer trading together aa copartners when the ser- |
vices were rendered ; and consequently it does not appear that there was a joint
and sevier^l liability on the part of the witness and the Defendant.

T^e Plaintiff seems to jiave taken this view for he rendered separate accounts
to the Defendant and to the witness, Ad acce|>ted payment from the witness
of his own sfiare of the charges. If, as seems probable, the witness in the '
case under consideration wa$ not liable for that debt, on account of which the
I>efendant was sued, his evidence was clearly admissible; if on the other hand
the witness was liable for that debt, then as it does not appear that his liability was
proved otherwise than by hir own admission, the case in this respect would
stand upon the same footing as Blacked v. Weir, in which the-ifritDfeis l^as held
admissible, because according to Judge Littledale he admitted aa touch against
himself as he proved'in his own favour. The case of Fawcett ▼. Wrathall — ^ ^
assuming that the witness in that case was liable for the debt for which the ^^
Defendant was ^ued, is also distinguishable from the case now to be decided in
this respect alsb: that in this case the witness seeks to make the Defendant
pay a deb for kfhioh priitid facte the witness and another are liable to the e^ ■
elusion of the Defendant, whereas in Fawcett v. Wrathall the liability, if it
existed, jmmA /acte irested upon the Defendant as w«ll as the witnesa. <

I now pass to the case of Hall t. Curzon 4c al., (0 Bar. 6t Cres., p. 640.^:^'

In this case the Defendants were sued as Members of a Trading Company,
called the City of London Central Street and Northern Improvement Co. In
order to shew that the Defendant Lett was a member of the Company, the
Plaintiff called a Shareholder and Director of the Compai^, proved to be so^
not only by his own admission but by other evidence in the case. His evidence
was objected to on the ground that he had an intei|Brin fixing the Defendant
as copartner, inaamach as be vroold be liable to contribute in a certain propor-
tion, and the witneaa'a contribution would be proportionably diminished.

Lord Tenterden overruled the objection, reaerving^owe^er to Defendant
liberty to move for a nonsuit.

Campbell moved aooordiDgly and oontended that Uiis mm waa distingniahaUe
from Blackett v. Weir, beoanae in that caae it appeared by the admianon of the
witnesa alone that he "waa jointiy liable; whereaa in the caae in which he waa.

/

Jt^

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1869.

Seti tlrlUr ""'•' "7 ""'•'■ •"''""=• ' •"•' '■« f"'^^- contended that
- the «^ in which hew „ovd w« dl.Ung«i.hable from Loc-kh.rt v Or.ha"

InJ^Hv. Cu«onthe w.tn*« w„ cdled to prove the exi.te„ce of the joint

.nil'^Jr?"'^''''' "'«*'"''« J-dgnient briefly alluded to Hlackott v W«{r

The prewnt oaso differs from Hall v. Curron m tn »«. ~ii«* e
^ Unce, namely that fn thi. case the Urdrj^^ 1 Ze^Tat

r;;n;t'^„T:ti^^ "^^ ^^ ^'"-'^ -- -- -« -^

JwUi now .llude auccinctly to a ca.e of «,me importance cited by the Re.-
P«Klen., namely, B«>w«. v. Browne, (4 T«unton, 752). in which it wm hd3
that m an action upon a joint contract againet two, one of the Defendrt. wli
ha. .offered judgment by default I. not^„i„ib, a. . wi n«l ^.Tn^tS^
^ to prore that he joined in th.contrj Mi.cM. It i. t'r^l!^
7Z^TI ^ \"^'^' ^' '""" '^^ «»««'vation. of Chief Ju.tLoMaCrd

WillMm Brown whom Judge Bayley did not receive a. a
♦HnZir?- .u'" ^' •" '^^ "i-^''^"- I'W"" tJ«t the witne«'w"«s

which h« wa. cdled to give, becauae he came to provTtiat the oSer Defen
r. S T •^ r"^ "■'"• '^'^ ^''-^'f' '"«•» ''o^Cve hTm .right of o^ntn

-^tion2Z,'"''^'^"S^?^^^^^ '^ the Plaintiff. ccJS^utTthe'
-??*'*" &«W .g«ii.t Jubb, then the oouMquenoe would L that U.e w tn«!
- done would be re.pon.ibIe to the Plaintifffor thewhole ^oZu» "^

' Th*re IS another Bngli.h.cawwhich w» not cited at the!.rin,ment h«t wl.5.h

In like BUBer m the cue now to be decided, prima /ocul m,i .«-^-j- .
ihenouridnrticleeof .o,>,rtn,„l.in.Sn,UH ^^-^n^lhTTf:"! *!
«he Wmtm, and ewh of them ibboiding to Aenrtielt. 9^ l|i^e»Wp Zrt p»^

Olwimiiiii

MtMOII.

the admiuibility of
witneu. and we are

290

riisiioiM
Mmmk.

.f

COURT OF QU^BtV'a JBNOH, 1869.

to liiin a nioiely of lii> claim ; buC if (fcaj (uia fmiu/n • liability upon llio DeAin-
dant Maaaon, tliof would bav« t»coDtribule eaob/fur a third intt«ad of «iioh for
a half of tli« d«5bt. /

Having ibua notif>cd the moat important Engliab cnaea b«ari|ig up«m tbi*
Important aubject, I inny oba«rv^ tliitt of tbo«« cnaoa, the tv^o muat (jloavly r»>
■enibliiig the prt>aent caao are lliill v. Gurson tn which ilia wUneaa Wan mhnit-
Ud, And Uiploy v. Tliompaon \i\ which the witneaa waa rejected.

If llioae two caaoH arc lo be doomed /)p()oai'd to each other and it bo nec«a>
•ary to ohooae bi-twt^on them, I do not ho«itato to any I prefer the ruling in
Ripley v. Thompson ; na it appenra to me mOat dapguroua, in any caac, lo allow
a witneaa, liable for h debt, to prove thnt another peraon ia liia copartner ; the
direct tendency of amh evidence being to relieve tho witneu from a part of the
debt Bued for, and to inipoae it upon the Defendant

Starkie (Starkie, Vol. I, p. 8t), Am. Ed. of 1884) doea not apeak of Blaiikett
y. Weir and Ilall v. Cunon on the one hand^ and Kipley v. Thompaon on the
other, M being opposed to each other. Referrifig (o, the caaea of Biackett v.
Weir, Hall v. Curzon and others, that author saya " A copartner in a Company,
** whether proved to be such by examination on the voir (ftVe, or by ^independent
** Evidence, i6 a competent witness to prove the liability of the defendant as a
" copartner,' for being a copartner he ia liable for hia contributory ahare of tho
*• damagea and costs." And in the same page, re'ferring to the case of Ripley v«
Thompaon and some other cnsen, the author observes, " It has been held that
" where the witness \» pritnli facie liable to the Vendor of goods whioh ho has
'* pu^cha8ed in his own name, he is not a competent witness for the Vendor
•* against a third person to prove that the Defendant is either solely or jointly
^' liable for the goods, for in such oascr the witness has a direct interest in
'* cauiing another to pay, or contribute to the payment of, the debt"

According to the distinctioii which Starkie seems to draw, the Courts in
England, although they allowed a person, liable under a contract, to giva
evidence for' the purpose of enforcing its provisions against another person
whose liability was disputed, yet they did not allow this to be done./ where
prima fade the witness was liable to pay thto debt to the ezclusio^ of~the
Defendant

In Ripley v. Thompson and al, the witness Gray had bonght certain honea
in his own name and therefore was not allowed to prove that the Defendanta
were, aa his coparMiers, jointly liable with him to pay the sam(( debt So in
the present case, the goods were sold to a firm which, />rH»a fctde, and accord-
ing to a notarial instrument, was composed of Soaith and Ball, and therefore I
think, A^rding to the ruling in Ripley t. Thompson, Snaith and Ball onght
not to.be admitted a* witnesses to make the Defendafat jointly liable with them-
selves towards the Plaintiff. .

I must admit I am j|ot prepared to sHfcw that either Ripley t. Thompaon, or
the present case is, in strict principle, distinguishable from some of the caaea
cited by the learned counsel for the Appellant, bat thisi think I may confidently
assert, that the pt'esent ease "differs from eaobof thoM.caMS ut-fo f0in6 important
fint hearing upop the jioint to be daoidad.' ■♦- —

■' „ »

"'. ."-K

\

y'

./-

COUUT OFQUEKN'g BBKOR 1869.

. m

T Wou If^*!! dIffT. f«,m rx>ckh.rt «n<rOr.h*m ^.tStrango 8fl) .„d York

HiiMo^r note th.t tbo cUfendwt «oa« /ia&fo^ wh«r««i |„ thi. om« it ...n;.™

fro« the-rtlole. of cop.rtnon.hip th.t th« l,..Lu„t i. «<,, JI^L!'" "•^•"

lh« diffewnco betwwn this odiw «nd UlacUt v. Weir Ys Bar <k P«- flaii\

.nd p.woatt . >yr.th.„ (. c. * p.,„e^,j h j^;s;t f :;s:i:::;!

witn««. WM ^™itto.I be<,«u.o boing the principal debtor he could Tver cUim

ZluTl ^" '"« f ^'•'"' -^ '" 4 V. Steel (2 A. .ndaN t "
m) he witneM w« .dmitted because for reasons poculiar to the English law
hi. .nterost wks clear^ adverse to that of the Plaintiff who called him^

HiU ». Cur«,n, wh.ch ofotho case, cited by the Appellant, is the one which

CMe. c ted by ft^Appc l«nt, in this n-spoct, that the evidence of Snaith wm

3::o::;;s:fer^ '' ^^-^f^ ^'-^ ".^iHty to t:

This tedious, but I thSi nocessary.-review of the leading case, cited by the
be present, but also, that the objection agHi,.st the evidence olTercd in tll^Me

we find, tl^t m R.pley v. Thompson, which, of all thec««above alluded to 1^
I th.nk, he 6ne most «miUr to the c«,e before u^ evidence such as that tin-

- 1 ^IL"^ M ^T"* ""* .''" "J"*'''^ ' ^'"'"'^ *''•' C<>»'* »»«'o'' »»y bo consider
ed justifiable ,n having rejeo.ed the evidence of the witness Snaith/

.!Z»Tx^ Vr V'*' ' ••" '''''"*"'«'^ ^^ *b.t I believe to be the dan-

fnT. . K r -V ™' """^ "P"" '" «'""•''>" ^- Wei' and Hall v. Curn
and a lo by the cons.deratiou that in this country, where the Judge, have rarelr*

^ ^r ra:x:„r- -'••-- ^^^ --- - -- ruio"wou.d^:t

We.r and ,n Hall v Curzon to any case exactly similar to iem. but for thl

XldTtrr ""'; \ r "^* ^'^'' '"^ «^*«"^ »"« »PP«-tion of t a
rule, and I th.nk .t would be nece«ary to do so in order to apply it to the

pre«nt ca«,. I have the less hesitation in preferring th. ruling in^R pi y

Thompson to that i„ Hall v. Curzon because the jud^ent in the latterS^ \

«a.ons .«,gned by Ch.ef Justicd Mansfield in support of hi. Judgment in
B«>wn V. Browne; and I may «ld to the weight of'authority in the' U^^^

Chapman

I

i

"•t

89a

.^-

OfQUBIir||iK6ff,18M.

ITjWW ^ wbol« it «p|>ear» to ni* thai 'b« Kngiinh omi 4^ Ml Mt«blMi any
nileofE»M#Mpe oppuaed to th« Judgment of tli« Oourt bdo« r«j«cting th«
«vi(I(r«)p^ # %\Ki\^ , ami that, (Imt .rii,?fni«n(, a* htAn^f In aonordancd with tbo
gtntral ift^JfU^ of Uw tm lliia .ulijact, oa^t to ho >«<>nflnne<J.

Ajfluin, /, tu4 MiP^J^ lUttd •liortly ih«ir «H)»«*"wtenca in the Judgtneni
"of the Court, on tl>« gr-vwml that lh« witn«i« Bnailh waa inUrMtmi in th« rmwlt*
of the caae, and al«o intim»to<t ibeir opinion, that a looret or dormant I'lartnar
waa npt rca|K>naiblu for tjie dvbu of Ui<« firm of wliidi he wna a mumbor.

Judgment oonfiriqod.
Ahboft, for Apprllnnt.

Ji- Boy, for li«a{]b(iUc>nt. , '

W.J.O.A.) , '

»r

• r IK IMtAL - \

,( . - • "

»io" TM IvraaioB Oov^T, DnraioT aw Mowtum.

* IIO>fTBlAIi. BTH MAY, |Mi .-

C<wim Si« L. n. LAFoirrAiw., Bart^ C. J^ Atlwiw, J, Dova^ J., M«R«Dnn, J.

U4A0 BLANCMNMS {DiM4»nt and Pttm»mtr im O^Ctmrt btlom).

I ^^^^*-

.p uoBtHABrur,(j>iaMrta«uawwft«Wo ;

0APU8 — PirrnOIl FOR DMOMABO 'M0kAh. /

H«M.-ThatM»|i|iMlwUIII« from an Intorlooutorr Judammil ott^^ of IhT' SaiHirfor Court

r«JeetlnRtheiummaryiiuUllonoradafciiUaolarr|M«dlv«l|ito«lolle<ltosbwMUta Uia tailM
or liVlo..Oap.4lLB.a.

•■- • V . • "

.,0d the 10th of' January, 1889, the App«II«nt waa arreted under a Writ of
J^apia$ ad Respondendum auod out of the Superior Court, Montreal, by one
Rice Shafpley, the Re»pond«nt

Soon after the return of the Writ, the Appellaht fyled a petition for hia dia-
oharge in virtu* of the Provincial Statute 12 Vic^ c. 42.

Tlie 2nd aec^p'of that Statuto enacta, amongst ot|ior"thingi^ that "it a&all
" bo lawful for the Court, ©r any Jodgo of the Court whencA any proceaa shall
" have issued to arrest any person, either in Term or iii Vacation, to order ai
" such person to bo discharged out of custody, if it shal|^ made to appear

•'■■Vt,' ■ — t— : . "

ed to plead the non-Joinder of others in abatement. The Oonrt held that " another pari
** owner is not ii( admis«ible witness for the Plaintiff to prove the ownership of the
" Defendant,^ for al^^nmg h ba' woald be liable as an owner to the Plaintiff in case he

« fiklled, or If he««j
." he has an interest ^^
"evidence of his Joi||
" diminish the amoan
" obliged to SDstaln."
See also, Pierce v.
Jnstlce, " That when ti«1iltpii
" which the suit la bronijtht, one
» yataat wltaaii for the PlafartMg

would he jtnswerable to the Defendant fbr contribatlon, yet

tfa((^ 'Defendant <a verdict agahisf whom would be

tiMe, thfi number of part owners and thua

loss, irueh he would otherwise himself be

|ll, A. T. n^PSffeh It was held by Nelson Chief
I whether the Defendant ever contraeted the debt for
ig to be a co-«ontraotflr with Urn Is noita oom>

'^

.sT^

COURT OF QUIEK'S

\'-M

J;W««n>r lA* 4*^ timt lh« r).ftnd«nt wm ln,m«l,„tel; .bout to U.** «,»
* Pro»lnc« with fraudulent l«««nt." "^ *

m«I« Ljr th. Il«p<>„.|«nt, «„d upon which th« Writ of c..fia. had l.«,*|; wj
Lt ; r TI'' •^.•* "• "" ""^ '^'"'^ '« '-- the Province ^^I

<li«K,hi»((«^jy|^p.,g^ pr(K)««d«d to proof.

m mm (Mr. Jn.ti(>« lUdgley.) bj judgment of d«U Ulh Maroll
ImiiiimwvI the Petition.

• ru!« from ttilfCoart In the following term. —. *

« dif t/?^ « Mo"trn,l, .n the di.trict of Montreal, trader and jeweller, the

- c.u.e No. 229« now pending in the .^perior Court foJ Lower Canada at

^ d .trict of Monty5al. merchant, i. Plainlir«nd Ipwo Ulanckeneeo of the «ime
^ plwe, tr^ler and jeweller, to wlt,,the Mid I««c Blancken«5e, i. defendant and
1 et!t,onor. the .aid Ju.Igment, tendered on the eleventh day of March. 18fi0,
rejecnng the petition of tto .aid I.««c Bl«hckcn«» in the .Aid 6«„.e fyled. to
U dlwharged out of cu.tody and liberated from the writ of Calia, ad
«^^um l«,«ed in thi. cau<e upon the affidavit of and at the .«|t of the

u i iTf: *"?. "■"*"' "'""•' ''" '"*' *"*"^«^' ""•J "••* H the »id Petitioner
Md h.. bad in thm cau«» be diwharged and relieved from all liability and rc.-
pon..b.l.ty incurred nnder and by virtue of and in con^Hjueno^ of the writ of
Capias ad Reddendum, ^nd that Her M.je.ty'. writ of appeal do i«ae

' accordingly ,n due counui of law to c*u«i tl^e record and proceSg. in thi.

•PgJJ-^wjfi?**! on the third day of May next "

^W^l^f!^^ '"*" ?''""''^«''»«« fy'*" «'ght o«hibit« in .upport of hi. motion!
. n 18 ordered that a rule do i«iue accordingly." .

The rule waa made absolute in the following term. :

,''?^^^^^^r^''«^"''^'^f^rtii>Bhy their Counwl reepectively. on the

^^ rale .,.ued in th,. cau.e on the twenty-«,venth day of April laat, doth declare

the same ab«,lute, and in consequence doth allow a. appeal |o i..no from tfie

Interiocutory Judgment rendered on th»oIeventh day <,f March, 1859, by the

Superior Court for Lower Canada at Montreal, and that a writ of ApLi do

^ iMae accordingly for Appellant'*^ , " i'i«'~ w

~j:2MMAiy.fbrAppjill«,L | Bale made .bwlut«

A DenUm, for Seapoadepk S j^ ^ ^ ^- . ., ■■;

/^

KUuiekiHuM

A

li.

-V

T^

/

.^'>-

294,;^

"!*^—»™ '*■'-'

COtJR DU' BANC PE LA RKNE, 1869. *

MONTREAL, 6 JtjN IMJK

■ i

Cofam Sir L. H. Lafontaine, IJiirt., J. C;, Aw.win, J,, Duval, J.,MEREDitn,J.

Ko. 60.

■¥

PIGEOX, (Demandevt^ en eour infirieure,)

. \ Appelant.

-IT

LE MAIRE. LE8 ECHEV1N8. ET LES ClTtoTENS DB LAXCITE. DE MONTREAi^
*•. tiDif»nde»rt«n e^it^irievrt,) .^'

. • ' I . \ .j.,>*itiiii6i. "'

J^ugd,— Quiius termes de I'acto 7 Vict., oh. 4«, tec. 80, Taction poor don^inigM nSsulUnt ^ud«huit d'os-
treticn do cl6turofi ct foasds par la'eorporation do Mantrdal copf^rmlimcnt aux diHpoaitions du at*,
tut provincial 10 Vict., ch. 127, SCO. 10^ cat prcscHptltolo pa^ laps do six moil.

. ^ Par 6a demalide I'appelant riclamaiwdeJiicorporation de Montr6al des dorn-

magcs au montant do £144, qu'il^Wtendait lui avoir *t6 causAs par la

negligence des intimis de Faire ifes/cl&tures et fosses pour sfipTaror^ la terra

de I'appelant de Taqueduc c^>i»truit par Ie» iiitimes, depuis les rapides de

Ifiachine k la cit6du MontrAaf; allegftant <jue par cette n6gligetice 11 avait 6t6

jiondant deux ann^es priv^e rusagejde qninze arpents de sa terre, sur laquelle

11 n's^vait pu. rien r6coker ni prendr(|l d'apimaux en pacage, comme il en avait

l'habitude.>

- i Les intim^B pr^ndirent que n'ayant pris, pour construire I'aqucduc, .aucune

partie de ja te);re de I'appelant, mais qu'a}'ani simplenient aclieti le terrain qui

born^ait laiwre dorappelant en profondeur, ils n'6taTefif tenuB que comme d«ft

voisins o/dinaircs, k faire et entretenir leur part de la cl6iure qui se troavait an

4rait-qMaTr6 de I* terre de I'appelatit et qui fetait mitoyenne entre les parties,

comme entre voisins ordinaires ; que I'appelant n^vait pas fait sa part de cl6ture

et que l^s intimes avaient, sans y 6tre obliges, construit toute la clAtur/3 qui

, sfipare I'aqueduc de la terre de I'appelant ; et que I'appelant n'avait souffert

aucuns doiumages. ' • -.. , '

Puis les Intim^ plaiderent ausid par une defense en fait. ^ ' '

Par le statut 10 Vict., ch. 127, § 10, il est^statuA : " Ciue la dite co^oralion

construiwet cntretiendra, & ses frais, des clotures et fbi^s^s coftvenables, de cha-

quo cote de la' terre dont elle aur^v^fait I'acquisition pour les fins <bx dit caniil et

..le long de la ligne de division entre le dit canal et les propri^tds qui se trouve-

l-rpntdo Tun ou de I'autrecote d'icelqi." ' ' .

La cour superieure, si^geant a Montreal avait renvoy6 cette demando eo
^ .^motivant ainsi son jugement :

. j^ " La cour apres avoir entendu les^rties^ etc., considSraot que le demiindear

TT^ n'a pas St&bli que les d^fendeurs aient caus4 k son dgard des %ommnges, que

pai^a loi, ils soient tenua de r^parer cnvers lui, considdrant que les dispositions

^ de la loi, en vertu de laquelle les defendeurs ont fait faire les ouvrages pour

prntii^uer^raquedue dont il est^quesUott-en c«tte^cau»e,-n?ont^«U6unemwit«iri

• cbi le domandeur de I'obligation de faire et entretenir ses cldtures de mitoyea

>".

-■.:,V,v^'

■»

.\i

■wr^x^

COUR B¥ BANC DE^ LA REINE, 1859.

m

net6rurafe; considorant que la preuve do dbmmagcs faito par lo demandour,
est tenement vaguo qu'il n'y a aacuD moyen d'apros cettq^ prouve de pr6ei8er
qnels sont ces dommages, et que la cour ne pourrait en accorder s'il en 6tait
prouv6 qu'en les fixant arbitrairement, ce> qu'elle ne peut et no doit faire, et
qu'attondu, le douto qui en r^sultc, 1?8 dSfcndeure en^ doivcnt avoir I'avantage
d6boute Taction du demandeur avedd^bcns." /^

Co jugement fut confirm6 on appeT^Vfmicipe que Taction 6tait prcscrita
lors de son institution par le laps do six mois.

Le jugomont rendu par la cour d'appel est comme suit :

"La cour apr^g avpir entendules parties par leurs avocats sur le m6rite, exa-
mtnfi lo dossier de la proc6dure en cour do preiJfere instance, les griefs d'appel
et les r^ponses A iceux et sur lo tout murcmcnt d6lib6r6 : *

Considorant q^e Taction n'a pas 6t6 intent6e dans les six mois qui ont suivi
la cessation des (jfommages qu'elle a pour objet de r6clamer, et que, par cons*-
-quent, aux termeij du statut provincial de 1843, ch. 44, le demandeur appelant
Atait non recevaWe k porter la dite action, confirme le jugement dont est appel
en autant qu'il d6bouto le dit demandeur de la dite action avec d6peu8, et lo
condaifiae au^fd^pens d'appel."

, Za/amm*, ^a/?ani»w et ^arnarrf, avocats de Tappelant.
;* Papin, avd^ des intim^s.
(p. B. L.)

Pigeon
Le M»ira et ak

T

'% 4M'—

/

■(

EN APPEL v;

DiSTBlCT t>K HONTBBAL.

» MONTEEAL, 7 JUIN 1869.

Chram Sir L. H. Lafowtaihe, Bart, J. C, Atlww, J., Duval, J., Mkredith, J.

. - No, 69.

(

J

GBENIEBt {DenutnOaur en Cour InfiHeure.)

Appelant.

XT

LEPBOHON. {D/lfendeuren Ckmr I^fMimre.)

Inti|p«.

Jug«r-l. Quelep«^ri«trii»d'unpont de pdage est tenu de mainteuir enbon^UtdenSparationle

ohemin(conduiaMitdeoepontftUriveoppos«e. ™i»n»mnie

8. Q«»* <l6fl«.t par Inl dVf W« les rtp.,.tlona requtoe.. U est tenu de payer les dommages Oc

oartounfa par le mauvsU «tat du ohemin. «u"uaB«i oo-

Le jugement rendu le SO avril 1868, par la Cour Supfirieure si6geant & Mon-
tr6al, d6boutait TAppelant de sa demande en dommages contre TIntim6 : sans
depens. >

Les all$gu6s de la declaration de I'Appelant sont comme suit : ^
_Que le dit Difendeur est le proprietairo d'un pont de p6ago sut la branclie do
1 Ottawa, entre la paroisso de St. Eustac^he et la paroi^ de Ste. Rose, dans le
dutnct de Montreal, -

- Qiw le dIt'Difendeur a obtenu uni charte ou privilege par autbritfi 16gi8lativ7
pour la constructJon de tel pont et est, par sa cbarte et par la loi, obligfi et tenu
d eutretenir le chemin qui conduit au dit pont. *

'

'■
t

J,-''-'

'^■-

\

■\:;'

296

COUR DU BANC DE LA REINB, 1869,

Orraler

Vi. •

Iieprohoii.

■\-

Que la partio du chemin conduisant all dit pont qui relie le pont au chemia
do front sur I'Ue J6(«U8, dans la paroiwe de 8to Rose, et qui s'6tend prcsqu'ii iin
ilot sur lequel aboutit le dit pont du D6fendciU» est un chemin priv6 en la pos-
session du DAfeqdeup comme propri^taire et est la propri6l6 du dit D6fendeur,
fait partie et doit 6tre conside^fee pomme p»rtie du dit pont. en dependant, et le
Ddfondeur est par la loi, ct doit fetVe consider* comme propri6taire de telle par-
tie du chemin comme partie ou Ackssoire indispensi^e du dit pont^ur leqqel
il a obtenu sa charte, en vertu do laqnelle il pr61dve le p^age de tousceux qui
se servent et qui sont oblig^ de se servir du dit pont.

Que le, Qu vers le 18 mai dernier, laVsusdite partie du chemin, la propri6t6
on en la possession du dit D6fendeur, 6^it dopuis plus d'un mois daim-nff 6tat
dangereux pour les passants, que le dit Dkfendeur avait n6glig6 d'y faire aucund
reparation et avait laiss6 cette partie dfi^chemin dans on 6tat impraticaWe, ex-
posant tous cenx qui ^tait soumis k la n^cessitd de passer sur le pont k de gra-
ves dangers. . \

Qua le dit D6fendeur a 6t6 souvent informe de ii'6tat dans lequel se trouvak
le dit chemin, a 6t6 requis de le r6parer et d'y porter remdde, et le dit D6fen-
deur n'a jamais ignor6 l'6tat dans lequel il so trouvait, et ibalgr6 telles connais-
ance, informations et requisitfons, le dit DAfendour a constamment n^]ig6 et
refusA do r^parer le dit chemin.

Que le dit D6fendeur est ot 6tait par la loi oblig6 de voir k I'ontretien conve-
nable de la dite partie du chemin comme sa propri6t6 et comme devant et fai-
sant partie du dit pont de p6age.

Que le dit jour, 18 mai dernier, le dit Demandear venant k la ville de Mon-
treal ou ses affaires i'appelaient, ignorant l'6tat dans lequel 6tait le dit che-
min, et n6cc88airement oblige de passer sup le dit pont, et de ]& par la dite
partie de chemin ci-hsut dicrite, en la possession du Defendeur, pour rejoindre
le chemin public dans la dite paroisse de Ste. Rose, ayant avec lui sa femme et
une autre personne dans sa yoiturc, apr^s avoir pay6 le pAage requis pour le
passage d'une voiture sur le dit pont, arrivaii la susdite partie du chemin, la-
qnelle 6tait dans reut ci-haut mentionne, I'eau passant par-dessos la partie
reservfee au passage des voitures, laquelle n'ayant aucune cl6ture ou garde pour
indiquer oil I'on pourrait passer ou pour pr6venir la chdte des voitures dans
I'eau de chaque c6te du dit passage, et par suite de tel mauvais 6tat du chemin,
r68ultat de la negligence 4ta Defendeiir, laYoitore du dit Demandeur sebrisa
et tomba dans I'eaa, entralnantle dit Demandeur et sa femme et leur causant
des irtjures considerables et serieuses, I'eau etant, ^ cette saison, tr^s froide.

Que le dit Demandeur fut-expoee k perdre la vie par suite de tel accident, et
en a eprouve une maladie grave qui I'a enleve k ses occupatioDs et dont il do
pent guerir, qfti ^ necessite des soins de meden<ns et a occasionne au dit De*
mandeur des depenses considerables en ontw des demmages par lui soufferts.

Que la voiture, les baides et des eSets que le Demandeur <^ son 6pou8e avaieat,
out ete, par suite de tel accident, compietemebt endommaget, lesquels dotn-
mages le dit Demandeur reduit ilk la somme de trente lovis.
^^iKst-wyuw-aa^t^emagcieBi^-parBaite^e Pa<Scident ta'Jrtnfr-Trf»t*rpp=-

.J A-.-1. i> i- -» 1- _i_j. . ■,:-rs... . ... ..

«J

•4fe.

COUR WTBAICO DB LA EUNB, 18W.

m

dans sa penonnet des dommages coiuid^rables, que le dit D«mand«ar rtdait k
la somme de £500 que le dit D6fdndeac rdoae «t n6gli^e de payer.

Qu'an odns^quenco le dit Demandeor ert bien f6nd6 k r6clamer da dit IMfen*
dear, la dite abmme de J660O de dommageB et int^rdta.

L*Intim6 renoontra cette deounde par une exception p6nmptoiie en droit
perp^tuelle et par ane defense aa fonds en faiL

L'exception contient lea all^ga^a suiTanta :

Que 1^ ehemin, dont il est queetion en cette canse, et qui oondnit au pont de
p^ du D6foadeur et dont il 4t qoettion en cette cause, n'appartient pas et
n'a jamais appartenu au D6feodeur, maia que le dit chemin est et a toujouia M
on chemin public.

Qu'avant la construction du pont du DAfendeur, le dit ehemin existait et 6tait
la propri6t6 du public, et serralt an poblio pour ae rendre A la traveree qui se
"••"i^^Met en^it, au moyen de Baca et antre8«embaitiattons.

Q«|^||it chemin existe depuis un temps imm6morialet a toujours 616 Un
^g^'itt route publique, ct a toi^ours 6t6 entretenu et r6par6 par le public et
PjSr^drs indiividua poBs6dant des propri6t6B dans la looalit6, conform^pent 4
.la loifute ot fiourrae en pareil caa.

Que le Ddfendeur n'est point tenu,'et ne I'a jamaia 6t6, k rentratien ou k la
'reparation du dit chemin en auoune fa^on.

Que Ic'dit chemin est maintenant, et oe, depuis pinsieurs ann6es, sous le con-
tr61e de la corporation de la paroisae de 8te. Rose, et ce, en Tertu,de8 lois faites
et pourvues en pareil caa, et depuis quelques anndea a 6t6 par e^6 et sons sa di-
rection, r6par6 et entretenu. "^

Que la dite corporation a m6me donn6 au rabais, le ^1 oct^re 1856, 1'entre-
tien et la reparation du dit chemin. /

Que c'estla dite corporation qui est responsable de tons dompages qui peuvent
6tre 6prour6a par le public par suite du mauvds 6tat d'auoun des chemins ainid
places sous Bon contrMe par les lois du pays. *

Que le dit D6fendeur n'est point, par sa ch«1«^ obIig6 et tenn d'entretenir le
dit chemin, ni par ancune loi.

Que le dit uhemin ne conduit pas en hirer an pont du Defendenr,et qu'il
n'est point, entratenu en hirer pour oonduire an pont dn D6fendeur et ne I'a
jamws 6t6, maia qn'il a tonjours 6t& fait en hirer de maniac k conduire sur la
glace i c6t6 du pont du D6fendeur.

Que le dit chemin est le senl chemin qui conduit k St. Eustache, et le public
n'a pas d'autre chemin pour s'y rendra.

Que partant. Taction du dit Demandeor eat mal fond6e «t doit 6tre renroy6e.

L'Intim6 a obtenu sa charte en 1847, 10 et 11 Vic, c. 99, et k cette 6poque
le chemin en question existait, en sorte que l'Intim6 pr6tendait que c'etait un
chemin public, et qu'il deridt nSoessairement 6tre entretenu par les int^^ess^s
etle public. F»rf< 18 VicVc. 100,sec.41, par. 98.

Le jngement de la Cour sup6rieure est motiri comme suit: — '*The Court

haring heard the parties by their counsel upon the merits, and examined the

-pweewJtBgB ■iid--«ridenee~of-Tecord, and^haring ddiberated diereK>n,~con8i:'

deringj^that the plea of peremptory exception «ti droit fyled in this case by

I^piWIMlt

; ra

V,

m

COUR DU BANC DE^^LA BBINB. 1869.

L .it ' ■

Oranler
tcprohon.

PWnt,fflmth not cstabfiSlTed the mate^ averment, of his declaration and co'
Bu^enngthat the injury suffered by thl^intiff, and b^ him Zpled o ^ ^
th, 8u,.wa8 ,n fact occasioned by the o^erWing onhe^Plaintifflvehic e
and by .t, defective conditi6n at the time of the injury so suffered Ih dS
the Pla,nt.ft's action without costs to either party/ om aismiaa

En appel ce jugcment fut renversd pour !oS motifs qui sont 6nonc«« dans lo
jugement rendu par la Cour du Banc de la Reine, eX qui est comme s^t :

• IWUntir ""Z ''''"'V"' P""<» P»' »«»™ avocats, sur le m6rite de
1 appel mterjete en cette cause Vamin6 le dossier de la' procedure en cour de

n^fc^i A.' * *;• * • ^"""d^rant que lel8e jour demai 1857 lo
Dofendeur-6taU proerKire en possession du p^t de pLge construtsurL

£t Ro? "" " 'T '^ ''• ^-'«1«'^»- lesWilfe St. Eulche e^
te„u«^i -T ''''" ^" ""**"* P'"°"'"^''^ pa«86 dans la session de la l^gislatu^

tenue les du.^mo et onzi^^e ann^es du r^gnc do sa Majesty, c. 99. Que com^
me te prop„6ta,re leDefendeur 6tait tenu de Hy^intenir tan le di pohrore fe
chemm condaisant d, dit pont 4 la rive oppoX en bon 6tat d Tparroi
Que le d.tjo«r. 18 mai I867,l#dit chemin coVduisant H la rive opp Jle S
pas en bon etat de reparation, mais au contraire 6tait dans un 2 dtrre„x
et ppue ,™praticab,e par la negligence du D^fendeur qui avai^ :mit dTfTre
Wpara ,ons requises. Que le Demandeur passant en voitur« sur le dft ^

Lirlf/ T*^"" "'"'' q"« ««^«°"»«.q»i IWompagnait, et leur

causant des dommages,et que pour le reeouvrement des dits dommages souffeiJI
pa 1 Demandeur .1 a droit d'action contre le Defendeur.et quV cLiqlcT

Jo r d'avril 185 \: J^^^'^l""" P— ^ P« '«^Cour Inf^rieu^le Joe
jour davril 1868, etceavec ddpens contre l'Intim6 sur le present appel et
ceUe cour pro^dant 4 rendre le jugement que la Cour loferiou'e ^a tTren
\dra, condamne le Defendeur 4 payer au Demandeur la somme de £5 coull

t^n "l/Z: rT''^""-^' -- -*^'^^ <•« - io- Et cette couTrot
cTl .^^'^^"'^«"'- ^ P^y*"- ^« Demandeur les frais par iui encourus dans la
Srrd:^"::^"'"^ '•"^ -^^ ^-^'^ premiere Lse appe.able dan! !:

• \ ^- «< ^- ^a/^»»»i«, avocats de I'Appelant;
. ^"Aeway* e< Popire, avocats do l'Intim6.

(P.E.L.)

■ 7 ■

',

(1) Vide 2 L. 0. Jurist, p, 118,
■■■*■•■

* 1 -

•■■•ii-

—r

•

*■

299

^PR DU BANC DB LA REINE, 1869.

' ^ — i' I

i BN APPBL

iDUDllTUOTXiaHoaTBIAK. -

1 ■ ■ ■

•MONTEBAl, 7 JUIN 18M.

C<>ram Sir L. H. lAFoNTAi^K, Bart., J. C, Atlwin, J, DiryAL, J, M«..

DITH, J. ,

\ » . AppeUntt.

i-ar Hon action, r«pporl«e en oonr in«riMr«, le 12 ootobre ISiH ri-ii™*. '
^A ««, «u„,, ,„ ,pp„„^ „^^„, j,^^__^ pl«„,e„ a„„, „,M h.

■•!^rnrr.tur."'rr '™"'^ •"■«"" —brim:^

« lion quell. ?."r»»r.ir'°'°'''"'''"''"l'''<'" '=°"'^1» ''"l*"-

r-^^- .,.■ ■.4"'"~j''?^j'-»jyiajaeciai:0-,QUft^aen-Bii}aif*^lnf^^

J., -„:__

8pO

OOUR DU BANG DE LA HEINE, 1869.

r
Lottlar

VI. ,

Oloutenoy.

I

O '

.-J •

'* Quo )e aalaire allou6 k la demaDdereaaa » Tari6, mais n'a jamais d^paas6
*' deux dollars par mois ;

" Quo io salaire qui lui dtait pay6 £tait lo salaira donn6 par les autre* calti*
" vatours do la loaalit6 pour los mdmes servioes ;

" Que loa d^fondeurs ne doivent rieh k la demanderesse ;|i

** Pourquoi, oto.

" So. Les d6fendeurs, pour d^fonso en fait k I'aotion, disent quUh nient
** expressiment tous lea alligu6$ de Faction, except6 ceux qu'ils i>ai admis par
*' leur d6fen8e, et qu'ils sent mal fond6s en fait

" Pourquoi, etc."

L'intimfie rdpondit en droit k U premidre exception des appelanta, oelle de
prescription, et g6n6ralement aux djux. autres plaidoyers.

Ho 27 mars dernier, aprds anditioi^sur la dite r6pon8e en droit, la oour inf6-
' tieure dibouta le plaidoyer de prescription des appeUmta qui firent et produisi-
rent Doe exceptibn au dit jugement.

Les parties proc^d&rent ensnite k TenquAte. L'intim6e n'avait pas 6tabli que
les appelants <6taient hiritiers dn dit ^eu Louis. Loasier, ni qu'ils avaient pris po»-'
session de sa snccession commd elle I'arait all6gu6. L'intim^e n'a produit anciin
, document |ii aucun timoin tendant ji fair^ cetta prenve qui 6tait indupensAble
pour soutenir son action, yii que les appelailts, loin d'admettre oette qiialit6,
Fav^ieat'lli^e pitr lenrs d^fenseK

Malgr6 ce ddfaut de preuve, la cour infSrieuxe, par son jugement final du 23
novembre 1858, condamna les appelaota k payer k I'intim^e one somme cle
£132 avec d6pens. ' 'A

C'est de CCS deux jugements qu'appel avait^t6 inteijet6.

La cour d'appel a maintenn la fin de iion-receyoir dos appelants invoqnant la
presciription et leur a di{6r6 le serment

Ce jugement est motiv6 comme suit :

" La cour apres avoir entendu les parties par leurs avocats, sur le ju^rite^
examine le dossier de la procedure en cour de premii&re instance, les grie&
d'appel et les r6ponses k iceux, et sur le tout m,iirement d61ibir6 :

Attendu que IMntimd par son action reclame la somme de £275 courant, pour
onze ann6e8 de salairo qu'elle pretend lui 6tre dues par les appelants, r^r6sen-
tants la succession de feu Louis Lussier, pour ses servioes en qualit6 de gourer-
Qante et jn6Dagere, et pour avoir eu la snrintendance et administration des fer-
mes et du manage de son difunt maitre jusqa'au jour de son d^ds k raison de
£25 par ann^e. ' >

Attendu qu'il ^t constats par la pteuve iqoa i'intim^e . pendant le dit espsce
de temps a rSsidd dans la famille de son dit, maitre en q)ia1it6 de servante, et
domestique, eta 6t6 employ^ aux travtfOi ordioairea des serritenn it gage
chez les habitants k la oampagne^

Attendu qu'il est aussi constat^ qa'avec la permission de i^n dit maitre on
de son aveUf'rintim^ de temps k autre, pendant son s^our ehez lui, a tiarailld
k son Gompte et pour son propre profit et pour d'^uties,
,. Attendu que la dite intimie, ne tient compto d'aucun paienient quelconque
Jtorlte-fflges-yiJelle-i^clamB pgiir un ai long espaca dataqipa, ,j<^tt«l"^^^Le>

■■■Xi

#■

COURT DU BANC DB LA REINB, 1869.

801

•*■** <!"« •"»• "'O'"" d'antres moyens de subiistance quo son tt-avail jonrnaliev,
ello a toujoum 6tA convonablement vfttuoelmfime au-delidcsbesoins ordinairet
dmne pereoone de son 6tat.

jAttopdu quo'la dite intim^e n'a pu faire preuve d'aucune convention pour le
^j^ement d'un salaire annuel de £25 ot qu'en estimant la valeur d« 8o<i service,
au plus haut, elle ne se raonte pAs au-delA de 208. par mois,

Attendu qito lei nppelants en r6ponse k la demande de rintim6c, ont invoqn6
la prescription pour les ann6c8 6ooul6e8 avant le 17 novembre 1866, et onl offert
d affirmer qu'ils ne doivent rien.

%Atten\iiiJ<^ue dans la jurisprudence franfaise telle qu'*tablie pour le Bas-Ca-
nada, Taction des domestiques pom leura gages eat prescriptiblo par an an, et
que de tout temps les tribunaux ont d6f6r6 le serment en pareil cas au maltre
ot que notamment tel 6tait I'usage constant au cbatelet de Paris, et que cette'
manidre de juger est conforme k la loi ot au droit.

yAquel»findenon-recevoiroppo86epar les appelants, prise dans le sens
ordinaire des mots, invoque sufflsamment, au d6sir du statut provincial 12 Vic,
ch. 38, sect. 80, li^ prescription fond6e sur la prAsomption de paiement reconnue
par la loi, et que la cdur sup6rieure, en renvoyant la dite.fln de non recevoir et
exception do prescription, a mal jug6, et gu'en rendant jugemenl contro les
appelants, surtout pour une somme aussi forte quo celle de £132 xourant sans
exiger I'affirmatjon-des appelants, tant sur la quotitfi des gages que sur le 'paie-
ment il y a aussi mal jug6 ; Lacourinfirme,annulle etmet au neant tant le
jugement interiocutoire rendu par la cour 8up6rieure JL Montreal, le 27 mars
1868, portant renvoi et d6bout6 de la dite fin de non recevoir, que lo jugement
final rendu ausjirofit de I'intimAe le 28 novembre 1858, et proc6dant i rendro
le jugement que la dite cour aurait dft rendre, il est ordonn6 que les appelants
comparaissent en personne devant la dite cour supirieure k Montreal, 4 tel jour
gui leur sera indiqu* par icelle pour affirmer sous sennent, au meilleur de leut
connaissance et croyance sur la quoUt6 des gages et le paiement des arr^raees
tant pour lepa886 que pendant I'annfie qui a pr6cM6 le d^cds du dit Louis
LuMier et qu k d6faut patT^es appelanU defairo telle afermation, le sermentsoit
d6ftr6 4J.ntim6o8»r.la dite quotit6ainsi que les dits paiements U}ntpourle
passd que pour I'annfie susdite, pour Bur ce, fetrefeit^ee que de droit, et de rai-

8on,etl«courcondamnela diteintim«eaujxd6pen8 de I'enquftte faite en la
cour suf^rieure ainsi qu'A ceux en af^ral."

Citations de I'intilh6e : Ord. de 1612 art. 67. Legrand sur Troyes, ,rtl 200
Glose ler No. ». Fer^dre sur Part 127 p. 648 No. 19.
Fttfe 2 L. C. Jurists p. 186.
Zayr«nay« ^/ Popiii avocats des appelants.
i^/amme, Za/amme «« jBornarrf avowts'de Hntimfie. *

n.

Olontenqr.

/-

802

SUPERIOR COURT. 1850.

^

MONTRBAL, 30th SBPT^MBBR, 18S9.
Coram Badolby, J.

"\ No. 1708. '

\ MacDonald ot al. vs. Roy.

HoM.-Tlmt a nwrc notice bf motion for ptrempUon iPiHttaHet docs not amount to • d«mand*Lt luoh
pMrn/i/Zrin, and that It U competent to the oppoaitn party tu provont tho offoct ot pirLipUon

, D> taking a proeeoltiw in tho oauiio botwevn tho giving of tho notice and th* actual mJiinK of
the luodon. s

\ This was a motion by tho defendant for ;)<rm/><Mm(rtfM<rtnce.

X^"**® Plnintifl's rcBistod it on tho ground that between the reception blr (hem.

of tW notice, and tho actual making of the motion they liad taken a |ioceed-

ing in tfee cause. And they relied on tho judgment in Beaudry vs. Flinguet,

8 L. C. Jurist, p. 237. \

Tho Court was with tho Platntiffk, anl dismissed the motion.

Motion dismi^d.
JSe/Aune <{! 2>unA;tn for Plaintiffs.
Ouimet, Morin & Marchand for'Defendanti /

Va-B.) ^ ... . ■ . ■ •/

N()Ti.— A similar judgment was rendered by the same Judge on the 80t6 of Septei
ber, 1859, in the cause No. 2639, S. 0. Montreal, Higglnson m. Hoskins, tt al.

(8.B.)

MONTRBAL, 30 SEPTEMBRB 1859. ^ / "^

Coraw Badolby, J. ,, ,

No. 1588.

The Trust dt Loan Compani/ of Upper Canada, vs. Doyle & al., <b Stanley,
ftdjudicataire, mis en cause. , ,

ingi :— Quo I'a^jadtcaUIre sur folio enohfiro n'ost point contralgnable par corps au paiemen^ del frail
encouru^ sur la revonte de la proprl6t4, mai« Mulement pour la dUT^ronoe du prlx des douz acU •
dicationa. .

Par la regie qui avait 6td 6man6e contre I'adjudicataire, Topposant non-col-
Ioqu6, Sobastien Clement dit Larivijdre, r^clamait la somme de £9 pour fraiK
6ncou^us sur I'Smanation du writ de Venditioni Exponas pour parvenir k la
revente de la propri6t6 adjug^e k Stanley qui avait n6glig6 dc-payer au sh6rif
le montantdo son prix d*adjadication ; et cela ind^pendammcnt de la somme
de £25 qui ^ait la difference entre le montant des deux adjudication^. ^Mttley
fit d^faut lors du rapport de la regie et la cour apr^s audition n*accorda la
contrainte .par corps que pour la somme de £25 et rejeta le^suriilus de la demande,
de I'Opposant en remarquant que la contrainte par corps n'existe pas pour le
paiement de tels frais.

Vide 16 Vic, oh. 194, sec. 29.

Sed Vide No. 570, Monarque vs. Martean et Beignier,'adjudicataire, on 1845.'

Zo/rena^e «& Popn^ avocats de I'Opposant. '

(p. B. U)

COUH SUP^RIBUBE, 1869.

809

MONTRBAL, 30 8EPTEMBRB 180». ^T

^ ^ Corqitn Bapolby, J.

No. inia. ,

E«p..to Z,M<r, !(,,„«,„„, ,„i««i„„ J, ,i,„^ « ^^,^ ^ ^, _ Op|.o,.„l..

8". Quunc, u-llo oppcltlon .cm m.l„tanue , n»l. J!mZT • \

\ ^,^°'«"'^;:«"* J«"«P'' I'^noi' ifomandait l« ratification d'un contrat do vcnto

JoTerr ''T.^^'n' ^' ''"^ '"' "^"'^ con.nti. Joseph B. Broniion, < u„

do terro m.r loquci lea Oppo,ant8 avaiont un p,ivil6g„ do bailleur, do fo.ul. an
>nta„tdo£lOOavoci..t...t dcpai« le ,or nL-.nbl ,8«8. Dan o eli:
Jo>«^Leno.r sobl.gca.t d'ncquittor cctto crianco avec int<ir6t A compter du
Jour^pa,,ation du oontral .eulemcnt. La chuiso est commo .uitT'

AndN.0 tho sa.d JoBopl. Lenoir doth hereby prolniBo^and bind hirawlf
to pay tl.0 further sum of one hundred pounds said currency, being the bZl
of a arger sum to nit : the sum of two hundred pounds, to tjio heh s and rol!
sonta .ves o the late Joseph Maurice Lamothe being in payment of the bZ^e
of consu^orafon money duo to the said heirs and fopresontatives of tho said I. e
Joseph MauriceLamolho by the-said Nelson Vosburgh.., assignee of one Lod!

8a 0 V thosa.dNelso„ Vosburgh to the^d Joseph B. Bronsdon. b^ the D^ed of

Lid d1i fT, • ""A"'"''' '''' "'' -^"V ^- »^--'- -»»'d under the
S^li ofl f ^"'V"^^"« '"''^«' -"d ^y vie of and as mentioned in a cort^n
De^ of Salo beanng date and oiecuted befoJ. D. E. Papineau ,nd his colieag;"
Notanes, the seventeenth day of march, one thousand eight hundred and Z-
one, m equal yearly payment, of twonty-flvo p^nds said currency each, on the
.wi7 f "^^.•"''er m each yea^ with interes\ thereon and payable ^e s«a
hSn K '^ "" '"^'"*"* thereof respectively, and thlt the intere^

therem such as may be i. ^id up to this $te, tho whole to be done by the
said Joseph Leno,r h,s heirs knd assigns to the porf^t oxonoration. acquittal
and discharge of the said Joseph B. Bronsdon his ho*? and assigns"
Par leur opposition les Opposints reclamaiont le montant en capitaf indiqud

an contrat do veute,mai8aveoinW6tdepui8le premier novombre 1868
Lors do I'audition sur I'inscriptiW do la cause pour lo jugemont do ratification :
Lafl^mme exposa, que le Requ6rant no devaitpas 6tre condamn6 aux fraia
do cotte opposition, vA qu'il s'6tait charg6 do payer aui^^nta le montant
do leur creance ot que^lle Atait la jurisprudence sanctiohwfcSHa oour dW
pel. 1 Jurist page 112. Ex parte ValUe, No. 309 en 184 ^ We DuL
ner». No. 1147, Oct. 1863. . . ^ r A' -»'«»w

Lafremye pour les Opposanta, pr6tendit, que I'indicatKon dert'aiement port^e
dana lacte do vente no les privait pas do leur droit d'oppLtion,V que ce n'6.
tait qu one d6l6gation imparfaite r6vooable entre les partiVfi«Hw§t«t- que la

' i°rn ^?!ri!^!?!'.^l^f,'j! ^^q"^."""* fa'«»'t voir que le 4roit delb^r oppo.
mtinn A.f nn^-.i f-i-i'-^'f del* part dwOppostoto} que difisTSp^e ^tfte

J

Umoth*.

804

COUR SUP£RIEURR, 1859.

lour crAHnoe n'AUit,pai tufBummont indiqu6o au contrnt qunnt au montnnt
det tnt6r(^t».

PiK CuKiAJf. — L'oppoaltion Mt HdmiRO, nttundA quo !«■ Oppotnntii Rvaiont
iijin lo droit do fiiiro'Ieur opposition, limit lanj/mu, OAr {'indication do paiemonk^
Icontonue au contrat do ventM fbi dii«pi>nrmil d«; In fairt.

R. A O. Laflamme, afocat du Ruquirant.

'La/rmoj/e <b JPupin, avocati doa Oppoiautt. ^

(p. 1, L.)

RAU»

MONTRRAU sorn APEIL 1858.

Cbram Baoolit, J.

^^ No.t46S.

Kerr v. OildertUeve.

^ONBTBCOTIOI^ OF 8 Wm. tV, CaP. 28.

/

Held.— lo. That the Judldsl Mie, under 6 Wm. IV. cap. Mk of • •tauner not regiitorod In Lower Ca-
',1s Invalid Mid void. -

'' to. That a purchaser at ineh Judicial lale, to whom dellrerjr under luoh lale baa b«en ma4^ and
who has been by force deprived of the vouel bf the real o#ner, will not lefover poifm^on by pro-
oeedliur by a Writ of SaUis revtndieation. °

The declaration of the Plaintiff alleged that, on the 13th Aiigust °npR(;iit
the Parish of St. Michel de Lachine* the Plaintiff became poascss^d.as proprietor
of a steamer called *'The Canadian," having acquired tho aame„at a judicial
sale there had' of the steamer her tackle and apparel, by John Bates of Montreal,
constable, acting in the execution, of divers warrants of distress legally issued
and by competent authority, at the instance of John Flanagan, dec &o^«omplain-
anta, against one John McCkirmick, the defendant in said complaints, for the
levying of certain wages claimed by and duly and legally adjudged, together
with the costs and expenses in that Ix^alf, to the said several complainantt), for
their services as seam^ employed on board the said steamer, and at which judi-
cial sale, the plaintiff b«ng the highest and best bidder, the steamer hor tackle
and apparel w(9re then apd there adjudged to him for the sum of £300 which
•^he then paid to the saic^constable, got d^Jivfry of the said vessel, and removed
her to Montreal, where/plaintiff remained in peaceable poesession of her until
the 15th then instant/ , '' .

That the said vmb^I and tftckle, &c., were worth £1260. \ '

That the defi;»iK3lant oni^,last mentioned day took forcible possession of the
vessel and Jodie her up the Lschine Canal with the intently of removing her
to Uppet Canada, to the plaintiff's damage of £2000. /
^...-^^e conclusions of thd dedaratioti wore in the usual iorm of a deolaratio».i^

revendication. ' ■ ■ ,- -• '\,;, ■ /' :_\ / ■ .■/' ._'\ '.'".

^ The pleas of the defendfoi^effeck alleged, that the defendant was the owner
of the vessel and in p9B(euion of her at the time/f the pretended judicial sale
mentioned in the plaintiff *b declaiation ^Tha/ tha veaael was neither owned

/

r^;

SUPERIOR COURT, 1869.

'^W

nor regintered in Lower Oiin«I» ; th«k in fact tho mI« to the plaintiff had l>««n

•ffwtod by the fraud, collu«ion, and oootrivauco of the plaintiff, and tha oom-

ftlainanta mentioned in hiH declaration.
Tho annwera qf tha plaintiff in offaot among other thing* averred tliat tha

ve«ol wa^ owned and navigntod by Jolin M.iCormick En Tx)wer Oanada.

Patf (.'uaiAM. The evidenca iihewi that tho dofeudant had made a conditional

a<lo of the vemel to McOormiok, not to be abi(6lute or effectiv« until the perform.

anco of tho condition by McConnick, but till then the Defendant was Itill the
rogintorod owner in Uppor Canada. Tho suit which preceded tho salo at which
the Plaintiff bought the vessel, was a suit l»ofore Magistratoa hero, under tlio
provisions of » Wm. 4, c. 28, which provided means for the recovery of wagea
duo to seamen of vessels behnging to or registered in Lower Canada, and which
only^gavo them jurisdiction over vessels registered and owned in Lower Canada.
This'vossel being registered in and belonging to Upper Canada the proceeding*
against her by tho Magistrates hero wer*, an absolute nullity, including the adju-
dication and salo to the plaintiff under the distress, and therefore the action is
dismissed. ,

' T^ojudgment was recorded as follows: —

The Court*.,* • • • • Considering that the aald vessel or steamer,
in the said deolaration menUonod, was not at any time belonging to or registered
in the heretofore Province of Lower Canada; Considering that the said JusUces
of the Peace in the said deolaration mentioned, -«Bt the making of the several
orders for the payment of Seamen's wages for alleged servioe on board the said
vessel or steamer in tho said declaration set fojrth, had no jurisdiction, power or
authority to oVder or cause the amount of such wages and of the oxpencoe
incurred by reason of the complaints before them therefor, and by reason of the
distress and lovjr thereon, and in the onforcomont of the aaid orders on the said
vessel or steamer in respect of such service or wages, and the tackle and apparel
of the sai(l Vessel or Steamer or tho said tackle and apparel thereof to bo levied
on,the same and that the said orders- were absolutely null and void as also the
adjudication of the said vessel or steamer and the said tackle and apparel thereof
to the sAtd Plaintiff as set out in his said declaration.

Considering that the said Plaintiff hath not ever had any legal right or title
of property in or to thoiBaid vessel or steamer with the said tackle and apparel
by reason of the said adjudication distress and orders aforesaid doth dismiss his
action in this behalf and doth annul and set aside th« attachment made in thia
cause without costs. ""

./ /■

£. Carter for Plaintiff.
Hose and Monk for Defendant.
(». w. I.)

Action dismissed.

■•4> .

n.
OUdanlMV*.

ii

I

' ''11

\"4

-<*^'

:^m\

SOf

•H

90PBRI0R tJOITRTlnisp.

>,

MONTRIAL, 9UT MAT, IIM.
Otram lUouLir, J.

N<stTM.

SrowHiny VI. rA«j aW/M* vtnMrJatm Friendfy Soeietg.

■da.-T|..t the «>c„Un.* .4 • Hill of »...h»,Mn, b, lh« offl<»r of • loolrty. If not trilhin tlu, «o,h,

TJifl I1»lntlff RUfld m hoIil«r of a Hill of Xto^iinj;^ drevn by one Jamoi H.
Phillip, I»r«.i(|«i,t una Oaiiernl Miinn(fflr <if tlu> I ),.ffln.j;nt, in his individual
nuni^, u|>on David Hunter, Soorotary-TrofiMuror of the wme Ho<d^ty, individually,
, and Kccui»U)d by bim aa HooroUry-Traaauror.

Tlio DofciKUnt i.!..Hdt..l a wtent of authority on tho part of iU offlcam to bind
th« Podtty by IrniiMOtiona boyond the puriioaea of iX» creation aa defined by
«ho A<!t of Incorporation, without ap«cial authorixatiun ffom th« Board of Dire©-^
tloft which in tlie preaent inatnnc4i hnd not been given.

JiMJj^niont waa aa followa:

« .Tl'« Court having heard Ac, ♦ * '* ♦. V conaidering that the
- PlHintiff luth not eaUblilhedl tho matorial allegationa of hia declaration, and
"thntthencceptanco inthiacHuao.fylod by tho Plaintiff, and drawn by one
" Jaiuea 11. Phillipa, individually, upon David Hunter, Eaquiro, individually,
*• and accepted by David Iluntor aa SecroUry-Treaaurer of tho Britiah American
" Friendly Society-of Canada, to wit: by th« Defendant, waa unauthoriwd, and
"did not innko the Defendant liable therjjfor, doth diamiaa the said action
•* witlicoata."

D #«•..« * Action diamia

Bovey, for Plaintiff.

Doutre <fc DaouU, for Defendant.

(W.tf.O.).

- MONTREAL, 31bt HAY, 1869. ~

' , .Coram Badql^Y, J.

No. I88». • '

JUae/arlane vs. Beliveau.

ll«Id,--Th«t»mimmoi»ttt»ppe»r"beftiroo«r/ia«c««of our Baperior Court," iMOfflclen* aiid aa
•vailalble aa a lummona to appear botbre the Cbitr<.

Thi» waa an oxisoption d la forme to a writ of aummons, by which the defen-
dant was Bunnmoncd " to be, and appear before our Justices oft our Superior
Court;" the defendant contending, that the proper mo<le waa to-^auinmon the
party to appear beifore the Court, and not before the Justices, and that the'writ
in the present case was consequently null and void.

, Pkr Ccriam : — (After stating facts.)— This case is one of some Hifflcu^j^y, for
I find it t*a8 decided by this Court in the ease of Macfarlane vsi I^elfsdei-nier, 4

^ IX C. Law Reports, p. 25. that auch a writ as the present one i|iuKbad, but in a
case of Grant A Brown, decided in Appeal,' 6 L. 0. Law Repd^, p. 187, the

"Chief Justice said " I do not think that making the writ returnable before one or
inorcr of the Judges of the Superior Court would vitiate tho'writ." It is tn|e,

■•?;>,

• 4.

§

^^.:;fi

SUPERIOR COUHT^ ISAO.

^^ 807

that in til* oflM Jaat nil^M to tk« writ wm .^ ^u t »

A.lh«„|,l„l„Mh,»„,p™«„| |„ Al,l>«il «,u.r™ .Ifc. ' T"'-

Za/r««m. A Xa/tmm*, for Pl.huift. *^""P^'"° ** '»/om#^dl.ml«^.
CaWicr, //«•<*€&/, «fc i'«mi»i;i7^ for n*ft,h(Ui,t.

MONTREAL, as MAT, I8S9,

: ^ . CWamH«RTti«LOT,J.

♦ Wo, iNi.

^yp. Martini v,.SJ. Martin.

'•*'"'*'*• **"" '• "^^'utlon d-uiio donation no naut At>. .!..„. jx
llh Qun In dtffkut do p4Ianien( dM uM«>»^ 4* . .

" dtt Ed,^^ M . • '"°""' """"»"» •• Pl«>ne forme et tonear, m awtonf om 2f

• "^•inonnjtctd^Iaiexoirt en^l«W^ '•'*''''• * «»»• «>»^ d« ««»,
«j«l«tice,etc.'' ; *^''*'*"^^^

MarthriMM
ft.

rr

<i^j^

. It.

^

J-

d08

COtTR SUPERIEITRE, 1860.

Xwctin

Le t)6fendeur plaida, par une defense en Droit, entr'antres raisona, lo. qjae
^'ingratitude ne pouvait Mre la cause de la resolution de la donation faite par le
' Demahdeur & l^ou^^ le 3 Oct. 1854, vA ^oe d'aprds les iill^gatlons

■'*•■ ■

I.

de la declaration, il apparaissait quo lo D^fendour ne pDasMait pas en vertu de
ciet acte, mais en vertu de I'acte d'eohangeentrele D^foadciar et Toussaint
Martin;
*^. So. Qu'en supposant qua Taction Ait portie contre I9 denaiaire lui-mftme, le
d^faut de paielbeiitdes . arrdrages d'une rente viagdre ne pouvait donner lieu i
' la r^lution d(i contrat qui or6e cette rente. /

So. JQu'on supposa^ que le Ddfendeur fClt coupable da refiia a1Ugu6 de rem-
plir lea djligatko^^ekToussaiut Miirtin, contenues en I'acte du 8 Oct. 1864 et
assum^Mr ]#jp^6f<(Medr,'dans I'acte d'6change du 25 AvHM 857, la resolu-
tion de ce^deux actesBA pouvait 6tre poursuivie, sans mettre en cause l'echan<
giste du JPi^f^ndenr, saVoir Toussaint Martin; que le but de I'acUon 6tant'de
remettre le4 choses dans I'etat od elles 6taient avant la donation, oe risultat ne
-, pouvait 6tre obtenu, quant au Ddfendeur, sans que la condamnation demand6e
n« retabtit en m&mo temps lesj choses entre lea deux 6changi8tes, dans I'acte du
26 Avril, 186Y.

Dovitre, pour le D6fendeur, pita & I'appoi de la premidrQ proposition, celle de
Vingraiitude: ^ ? ]■' '^

Foiroat, L6^6lation et Froo6dure, 1. 1, p. 174, ]^q. 1^1. Sur la seoonde pru-
^ition, celle qui ix\tM Taction en r6solutipn pour dhliM de piuement des arrd-

d^'iine rente ^agdre, U pr6tenditque notra droit 6tantsileneieux surle

I'artiJIle 1978! do code civil fi«n9ai8 devait recevoir application, vii les

iti& nusonnablea uuf l^uels 6tait fond4e la legislation aotnelle de la France.

otif qui fait repottoser Paction en resolution est que le creander d'une rente

viagdre abaorbe le capital de la rente, avec chaque partie d'arr6rages qu'il revolt.

—Dans le eontrat de rente yiagdre, k titre onereux, comme dans la. presente

instance, la rente annuflpt vaut plus que llnteret legal ou les fruits du capital

de la .rente, puisqoe oe ci^ital'est acquis au debitenrde la rente, sans indemnite,

k la niort de la peraosne sur laquell^ elle est ereee. Cette opinion est develop-

p6e par les anteurs aaivanta :

Duranton, 1. 16, No. 371, 1. 18, No. 168. '

jBerriat St Frix, t 2, p. 488, Nob. 184&«taiiivant;.

Duverffter^t. l,No. 461. *" " j

* 2V<>{>{oii$r, Vente, t 2, No. 647.

Sirey, xioX, 2, 248, Id. XXV, 1, 19.

ZaeehariOf No. 866, Noite 16.

Snr la tioiriime projiontion, celle de la necessKede mettre tontes 1^ parties
auise,il argnaqae ai la delegation, par Toussaint Martin an 10efendear,
it.parfiiite^ il ponrraity avoir du donte, poarraVoir ri leDefendenr, ne devait
4tr8 teno, k Vigud da Doni&deor, k tootoi lea conseqaetices da de&at d'ac-
«bmplisBeinent deacbai^ par M aasomeea, Mof poor lai i cjiercher son remide
idlleun; mais qa« fe doota a^efaaooiasait- en presence ^ane delegation aussi
napaiiaite qufl odle oontoiHio dmii I'antw d'eebange. -Kn rtalite oe dernier acte

XI

ne cohtient qu^nne indication de paiement. Le^emandear declare n'acoepter

^

'■fe'-

4^

COUR 8UPEBIEURE, 1889.

■J. -

800

le t)*fendeur,comine.d4biteur, qu'cn awten/ qu'U remplira let Migatioatde
Toutmnt Martin. Done il demeure cr&»ncier de TouBuaint Martin, si lo D6.

fend6urii©TCmplit pas Addlement ses obligations. „..

Pour que la delegation soit parfaite, il faut quo le premi«r obligd soit WUxi.
i^e/wncourf, t 2, p. 567, Note 8. *

Ep supposant mfeme que la d6I6gation fikt parfaite, comment parvenir au re-
• Wlt^t deraandd, cW-A^lire la rdsolution de i'ichange, et lemottre les parties
dails 1 etat ou elles 6taient, sans mettro en cause les deux ichangistes ? Le rdle
dee tribuiiaux, en dficlarant un acte rdsolu, consiste Acontraindre les parties &
c«t acte, i defaire co qu'elles ont fait, et k se faire r6cipr6queinent les rembour-
sements et prestations que r6quit6 les obligerait a reoiplir. On en a un ex-
etaple dans la resolution de la vente, pour d6faut de paiement lorsou'elle est
pron<ytac6e entre les deux parties contraatantes. Dans ce cas, le vendeur doit
rembourser ce qu'il a reju, compensation faite des fruits et revenus.
PoiWer, Vent^ Nb. 469.
Toullier, t 6, No. 563 et suiv. 667 in fine.

Djyistous les cas de rescision, poursuivie contre des tiers acqu^reurs, pour
dol, lesion, erreur, I'acqudretir originaire et le tiers detenteur doivent 6tre et sour
mis en cause. ' : \. t '

^A/am(?e, Dol et Fraude, 1. 1, No. 299. ^ , — '

2)«fa»ton, t. 12, Nos. 564, 656. ' ' I' '

II en est ainsilJo la r6solulionuleinand6e en cette cause.

2)ani«ton, t 8, No. 643.

V •• t. 16, No. 361.

^iV«y, Cassation, L 17, (1816, 11 mars) 2>me partie. '

PoTuet, Lfigislation et Procedure, 1. 1, p. 179.

Diciaions den Tribunam, Bas^Janada, I. 7, p. 66, Patenaude et Uriger

" ,« « t2,p.251,MignieretMignier. > ' /|v

" ■• " t. 6, p. 486, Joseph et Brewster. J

Zo«i»5r«-,pQnrDemandeur,r6pondit,que I'objection fondfie sur I'inimitittidJ
alleguie dans la diclaration paraissait k la v6rit6,"d»acoord avec les principes •
mais que 1 action ressortait prinoipalkffient dfi dfifaut d'atecompliaeementpar le D6-
fendeur,d«scharge8de ladooatioii; quelad«I6gationcontenueenrao^d'«ohan-
ge ayantpetsonnellement obligd le D6fendeur enversle Demandeur, ^ dernier "
navaitpasA s^inquifitersison action cr^cmit plus oumoin.d'cmbams to Bfifen-
.deur; que le Demandeur ayantdroit de s'adresser dirwtenwnt an D6fiidear «n
wrtu de la d^Wgation, il a'AUit pas Umu de mettre Tonssaint Marttii en ca^. U
• y^roumt daiUenns pour oe qui «)ncemait le Demandeur, ea la penonne da
dibitenr d616ga6; qae la distinotioii fiute par l«]>6feudenr entre iroontmt de
rente viftgdreet le contrat de,Tentey.wl«iivemet.)[ A Paction rtsdutoire n'exl.. 1
tait pas sons nolie droit. I "T 1

, PteCoiuuc. aijd6fenwendroit,plaid«fteJoettecau.enep(«valt,6„B^^ '
quAla condition d'affirmer laMconde proporf^n, *nonc«e par le D^fendeur
•aroit que le d«fiiut de paiement dw arrdrages d'bne rente^Tiagdte n'eat pas nne
^^J^J*^^^^^^ i'«et« conrtittttif de la wjta. h wirnnit rtwitii^do-^

-:j^^....j^ , - ..^„ ■ ■ ^zz— •""" "^ ";*yfy?t, ■■ wwt hub contraiata-d^

-aSboiter la dlfenMenairolt; ewtout en i^H***"' <!«• «*»• pr^ «it

^^^

Martin
MmtMb.

A

y-

>*•

tj^ •

i\

i. , -■

■^\

310

COUR SUFERIEURE, 186Q.

Hartln

vs.
Martin.

conform^ ti I'nrt. 1078 dn code Napoleon, il est constant qu'olle est repouss^e
par Ic droit ancien qui' nous rdgit. I

CiiAiJOT, questions tranaitoires, t. 2 §t, sur co m^me article, dii qu^ lea Ren-
tes viag^ros, crd6o8 ayant le code, sont resolublcs pour^ddfaut de paiemcnt des
■ arr6rag|&i>. ."...■ j;' • ''Ij .

Maizes antres propositions/ ligales de la dfifense en droit suflBsofl^ si elles
sont aiBrm£es, pour faire dd^outcr I'actioh ; et la cour est d'opinion, pour les
raisohs d6vclof(^es dftns les autorit6s citdgs par le Defendeu&^Of qj«ri*ipgra-"
litudo n'est une cause do resolution qu'^ l'6gard du donataire lui bftme ; 2o.^qiie
'a resolution des deux acteii. inentionnos dans la declaration )ie p^uvait/ 6tce
poursuivre sans mettr^ en cause les parties stipulant dans cos actes. En conse-x
quenco, In cour maintient la defense en droit et d6bou(e Taction. ' \

\ '' ■ ^ ._ ^1 „ Action d6bout6ei; \

"^ Zorop^ff e/ ^rA*f», pour le Dcmandeur. - y ,, ■ "

DoM^rc ^f i?aoM*<, pour le Dofendcur. / -

(J.D.) . • : ' " '

-'■ ■':- ■, ■ - ^ /' - '• ■■"".■.

,' SUPERIOR COJJRt. * ,.„.

MONTREAL, 31st MARCH. 1859.

Coram Badolev, J. *

No. 1818.

Leprohon vs. Globenski/, Tator. "

' field,— That $ cdhveyliig or crossing of peribiis, &o., over a river within tBS^IKmlts of another's exclu<
. Bive rigliti of ferriage and transport, although done gratuitously, if it ultimately produces gain to
the person working the unauthorized feriry or crossing, is a crossing for hire and gain within the
meaning of the statute, and au innringement of the exolttsivo rights created thereunder.

This action was brought agajffist Globenaky as tutor to a minor, proprietress
of a Seigniorial mill- at St. EustAche, and who in the course of the action took up
the instance, to recover damagSs for the infringement of an exchisive right of
ferry held by PfaintiflF under the Provincial Statute 10 & 11 Vict., ch. 99, an^
to obtain a judicial prohibition of such infringement for the future. The Plain- /
tiff was proprietor of a bridge from St. Eustache IQ Isle Jesus; with exclusire^'f
privilege of crossing persons, cattle and carriages for toll. By the act a penalty
was imposed upoQ any other person who should build a bridge, or work ^ruse
a ferry for transport across the river, for liire^ within a league above or below
the plaintiff's bridge, of, in case of a bridge, three times tb^toll chargeable on
Plaintiff's, and in case of a ferry, forty shillings /or each person, animal or car-
riage, conveyed aoroH the river, for. hire or gain. The Defendant inorder to
draw customers to her ta\\\, on the St. Eustache side of the river, provided a
boat and made no charge for bringing ^em over; and this practice continue^,
from 1 distill 1853. The Plaintiff pomplained of this* as an innMereQce with
his rights. y\ ^*

The Defendant fyled a difense en droit, to the'effect that the Plaintiff had no .^ '
action inydamages, but that a penalty having 4>eeii fixed!^y tli|i act, he could
only sue for its enforcement before the prescribed tribunal. Two Exceptions

•1p-'

SITPERIOK COURT, 1869.

311

tiff hS ^7"'', "« ''^/••g« had been made for J.er ferry. «„d also, that fho"^-
tiff had Buffered no damage by the existence of the ferry since if wl i .
W„ no such convenience, those persons who had Jdl ZC tll^:" fj

gmt to anotl^r m./I. further up the river, where also free crossing was offered

Jvbr' <\^«' «;''!•"»-*••«'•-»«•) The ground of «.^deirrils at
~ady been overruled ,n thi. Court ; and in the 16th Louisian^ Reportei Mo hi
found a case, Fe^er.. Watkin., .here'a similar decision JgTvr tL ,aw
n fix „g a penalty provides a punishment for tb^^ubU.offenceTf bfringit ho
*w, but does no take away the common law rfght, to seek redress in daraa"^ for "
injury commuted. The Defendant's ferry disturbed the PJaintir exeZ f r/ri
V. ege.u be.ng not more than half a league away, but it appear! thalftrp'I
p^e had no been able to cross in Defendant's boat, they would have gon to C

8L ri t ^ ''.!"'"• ^^^ ^"*^**"'» "' ««"'d the proprietress of the ■

St, Eustache se,gn,or>al p,ill, by offering free carriage across, attract ^rist to her
mOl to he .njury of the ownerof the bridge; I think ncH. AtS^S^^-

^w th n certain l,m,t,, agamst o,e who erects any other feriy or bridge wUhin

see.nN^B. and Qr^^ 703, .case of disturbance of ferry, by Defendant plyi„. »
boat froW to the same places from and to which Haintiff's ferrv-boat 2d
So^Iso^a]M^c«ble toatbU bridge with exclusiv^right. Wll^a pe^on
doesan^uJ^mlurious tosuch aright,he bridgeowne^l^asL action a^nst ll

last«T .": "" "^'^ "^""^^' '^^''^ legislature, and the ponTs" '
has the Defendant contravened that right by crossing persons. &c without

charge, the act having declared that no person, &c., shaH I conveytd ^r Ta^!:,*

M^e or gavny Th.s point has to a certain extent been ruled^ by our o^^

ocal unsprudence, ,„ the year 1842, in the case of 'Mr. Lachapelle who X
tamed judgment in his favor. He was owner of a bridge with T^^^J^^l
of transport^ and sora<, persons *ith the object of forming a crossing by which

hey secured cer^ advantages, sent down masses of ice against his pie,^ whe™
A^ lo ged and^ade a crossing. However, it is no disturbance if one havitf"
a bdat for us o^fn convenience, cross himself, or even lend his boat to his nei..L-
bottr gratuitously, because the taking of toll for passage is essentia to .ee^a
bhshmentofaferry But it is otherwise where the gratuitous p^. toX
a cover for gam. as in the case of /'enner vs. Fa^^W above. Th^Sle dS

n^d tTV7'*T T' '"^ '""'^^ "^"^ gratuitously all persons who sto^
ped at their hotel; and m that case it was held that the profits which Zv
made from^snch customers, enabled them to bear the expense of takinir Tern
over the nver and this obligation which the customers Vere undrwhenn^
fernage was charged, to put up at the Defendant's house, was as advantageo„B '
to the latter as the ferriage, and perhaps ^.ore «o. and consequenth eqS'
,nju„oust« the Plaintiff. The principlfof this judgment maniltlyT^^^^^
the nreaflnt, case.! It is oBtahlii.h«J h.> «i^ ....:.;«' ^t ° ^ .. . .. J^VV»^^ v>

Loprohou

VI.

Olobonsky.

m

passed over persons. an.maU and ca«j^ev by a boat or dbfa^^

_:l-,;-* .-

•3-

Ii0prohoii
Olobamky,

ill

312

n

SUPERIOE COtjRT, 1869.

forjilie purpose, true, without charge, but for the special benefit of her mill, and
for the grindiug of the grain conveyed by them, which woijihl otherwise have
been lost to the Defendant, ini^imuch as these grain owners on Isle J6su8 would
rather have gone to Mr. Vigor's mill, a few miles further, where they wore cross-
ed without charge, than to the Defendant's mill, paying bridge toll, notwith>
standing the pjroximity of .the Defendant's mill and its makirig better ^our,
woriti^ls. per quintal over the flour made M the other mills. The Defendant
charged nothing for her ferry, but stilL she made gain by It. It was to her ad-
vantage to offer this inducement,- and she profited peuuniarily b^ it, though she

, took no pay. for the mere 'ferry. The Plamtiff must have judgment. As to the
damages, they will be only nominal, £5, as none are specially proved, but a

' prohibition will issue against Defendant^ forbidding, her to continue the fofry.

i'he judgment was recorded as follows ;-^ . .,_

" uk cour condamno les D^fendeurs, par reprise. d'instftnce,! payer aux De.
mandeors, par reprise-d'tustance, la somme de £5, cours actuol djc cette province
du Canada, pour 'dommages et int6r6t8 causes aux Pemandeurs, par reprise
d'instance, pour les causes mentiorin^es- en ja d6claration filee en cette cause,
poiir avoir gardi ou fait ga'rder un bac ou chaland (pour leur profit) pour travcr*
sef des perEonnes, bestiaux et voitures sur )a riviere J6sus, au-dessus du pontides
-Demandeurs, par reprise d'instance, mais dans les limites du privilege de ces
derniers, et^ussi en ayant pratique ct fait pratiquer,'i>our leur profit, illSgale'''
ment, aa moyen ^e ce bac ou chuland, des voies de passages et traverse, pour le
transport des persgnifasr^estiaux et. voitures, a traver&^Ja dite riviere J6sus^
ttu mepris diistatW pra^ 10 et 11 Victoria, cJ 90, et des droits acquis

de^ Deraandeurd, "pnr reprise d^instance, et ppur les priver depuis 1849 k
I'annee 1833 des droits et profits de pdage 4u dit pont, tel que plus am-
plement mentionn^ et d6taill6 dans la d^clarfttioi^du Demandeur' produite en
cette cause, le tout avec int6r&t sur la dite somme de £5, cours susdit, k compr
ter de ce jour jusqu'au j^^rfait paiement, et aux ddpons. Et la cour au desir des
conclusions du Demandeur fait par ces prSsontes defense aux Difendeura, par
reprise d'instance, de recevoir ou de tenir et man^nir le dit bac. ou chaland, ou-
aucune autre voiture d'eau. pour, au moyen d'iceu£;|prkt|^tfer pour leur profit,

fAUQ^ne voie de passage ou traverse des personnes, btetiaux et voitures, danajes

^imites du susdit privilege des dits Demandeurs par reprise d'instance.
A, >' ;* , Judgment for Plaintiff.

• iof/rcnaycci Papin, for Plaintiffs.' s, . ' ■

Cherrier, Dorian dk Dorion. for Defendants. * „ .

c^ . • -.< • ■ "■-■

AoTHOUTmonioBTTHiPuiiinrrB i-r-Vide 7 Pickering's Reports, 844, thecaseoft^e
Oharlea River Bridge Oompanyand the Warren Bridge Oompany ; 5th Tolume Peters, 42^j
tAmerican Jurist for July 1831, vol. 6, pages 86 — 184 ; Paschal Persillier Lachapille v.
Lessort et al., Montreal, April, 1842 ; Sad contra, Hota Appellant, and' Rouleaa et al.,
respondents, I^ovember, 1848. v

V

"* ■>:'

I .',!■ ^

>»•

SUPEftlOU COURX, jsao.

313

-v.

1,1'

MOXTRBAL, 22nd MAIt€H, I860.
Gbram Day, J., Smith, J., (C.) Mqndblet, J

No. 0»7.

The Commissioner of Indian iimds for Lower Canada vs. Payant dit St. Onge
et Paifant dit St. Ongc (^Plaintiff eng^ntie), vs. On8anoron, {Defendant
en garantie). ' ^ =*/,- .. "^ ",

Hold ; lo. That Iiidlms have not by law any rli?lit or tUIo by virtue whereof they can iclland dispose
of tho *rood growing upon their land« sot apart ami appropriated to and for tho use of the triboor
body 6f Indians therein residing. /

, lo. That Buoh wood U hold in trust by the eommisiionQr of Indian lands for Lower Canada.

Thi& was an action tn saisie-revendication brought by (he Plaintiff in the -
_ J principal dematid for the recovery of twelve ^ortls and upwards of fire-wood of-
^ the value of £10, cut, felled and carried away by the Defendant in the princi-
pal demand; in November 1854, from and Upon tho unconccded lands of the
Seigniory of Sault SL Lovis, which for more than 20 years has been set apart"
andappropriatedtoandfor the use of the tribe or body of fndians therein
residing and as such is vested in the said principal Plaintiff. Besides the value
of the wood, the principal Plaintiff claimed £5^ for damages.

Before answering this demand ; the principal defendant took out an action
en garantie against the Indian OnSanoron with whom he had made a contract
fcr the wood; alledging; "Que par a«te re^u 4. St. Isidore, devant Mtre. Lan-
" gevin et son confrere Notaires, le 18 Dicembre 1864, le demandeur et le d6,
. *• fendeur convinrent enMmble et ddclardrent ce qui suit, "avoir : que le dit d«-
"fendeur avait domi6, le ler Novembre dernier itu demandeur, an morceau de
•* terre d'entiron un demi arpent en 8uperfici9,,sur sa terre qu'il occnpait alors
" dana le dit Sault St. Louis, situ6e (tu c6t6 sud tsst du chemin de fer de Mon-
«* tr6al et New-York, i aettoyer et faire la terre du demi arpept en superflcie an
"bateau, (leisouches except) et livrable au printemps prochAin, pour 6tre
" ensemeBcSes, ce k quo! le dit detaandeur consentit et s'obligea par le dit acte„
•* Et pour toute indemnity de la part dd dit dfifendeur envers le dit demandeur^
"ce dernier enleverait dedans le dit morceau de terre tout le bois qui s'y trouvait
• " et en dispo.urait comme bon lui semblerait''; tel fut expressement convenu."
The defendant en garantie having appeared took up the /at'e et eauseot the said
S .principal defendant and pleaded a» follows : ;,, '

•• Le d^fendeur en garantie prenant le fait e| cause du dfifendeur principal et
n'admettant en rien lea alI6gatipna da demandeur principal, dit :.poar exception '
p6temptoire li sa demande : - -~

••Que lui le d6fendeur en garantie & £t6 pour plus de cinq ans, propri^taire
en possession, et a joui poor son propre usage et avantage, et ceja d'une manidre-
distinote des aotrea terrea f<)rmant pattie dea terrea qnt sont sons le contr61e da
demandear prinoipai, d'an certun lot de terrerais et sitn^'dMis la Sdgnenrie da
8«nlt St. Loaia, ao o6ti aud-est da chemin de fer de Montreal et N«w-Tork ;
- leqHel lot de terre eat eneoi| oooupi par le dit difendenr en garantie.'

**Qa*U efa 6Uit ainti eng9MM»^» '• P" t<^i» Iff Iftf Noytmhra demiyi-. aiP-«
file d^ bpla qoi avait orft ^r ce lot de terre.

^ -VV II.

<> . ■ ^

314

SUPERIOR COURT, 1886.

Co'nniiuionerbf
Inilikn lAuds

VR.

I'nyimt.

.^■■

" C^e ce jour li il«a pormis au defeiKiour principal d'cnlevor du bois qui m
trouvait sur le lot, et de lo cogvortir k bou propre usage ai^si qu'il a 6t6 conve-
nn plus tard par.acte fait le 18 l)6conibre 1854 deyant Mtre. J. F. Langovin ot
•on confrere Notairos, lequel acte est produit avec le^s prisentes pour y r*f6rei'
comme en faisant partie. , •. -

" Que par Ics iis et coulumcs suivia dans la tribu Indienne du Sa\ilt &t. Louia
lui le dofendouf en garantie avait droit dejouir du dit lot de torro etdeconver^
tir k son propre usage le boi« qui avait erft sur ce lot.

" Que If d6fendeur principal qui avait acquis le bois du d^fendeur en garantjft
n'en pouvait 4tre en aucnne fa9on qifticonque d6poM^ par le dejiiandear*
principal et qu'ainsi la 8ai8|edeparti©4frceboi8raTte en cette cause a *t6 |>ratiqu6e
a tort §Llo dcmandeurprincipal ne pent revondiqucr la propri6t^ du bois saisi.
• "{PourquoUe ddfendeur en garantie demande le d6bout6 de la dite action, et
■aisie avec dipens." /^ ,«

To this Plea, the principal PlaintilT answered speoially as follows : '
"That even if the defendant «n ^dran<te did occupy the land mentioned In
the said pleas, which tlie Plaintiff does not adnlit but on the contrary denies;
yet the occupation thereof or thQ possession thereof under the cusjoiiiary Indian
Title could confer no right on the. occupant to sell and> dispose of the wood
thereon or any part thereof. * /

That the whole of the lands of' the said Seigniory are held in trust by the .
Plaintiff for ^he benefit of the whole tribe of Indians.thercin residing and under '
the local regulations of the* chiefs of the said tribe, ^uly appointed by compe^''
tent authority. • v » " /' '*

Th^t the right to Uke wood "from off tb/said lands, by tha said regulations
and by law extends only to the taking ofku^h wood as may be required fpr th?
^ individual uses of the Indians residing tiferein and confers on no party the right
f to sell and dispose of the same, and ^}laintiff specialjy denies thftt the defendant
eii garantie had any legal right to sell and dispose of the wood seized in this
cause to the Defendant or to any other persons whatever and particularly, to
kuch persons as are. by law prohibited from selling or holding propertji withfn
the Jndian lands of this province and ©(which persoifs the Defendant is one.
\ That both the defendant and the defendant »» y^ranfw were well aware of
tHese facts yet contriving to despoil the 8ii|id property of the wood growing
th^eon to the loss and jnju^y of the commanity of Indians for whom the said
plaintiff holHs tb(^aAid lands in trust, the defendant with the conBivanco of the
defendant myarantie took the wood inentioned in the plaintiff's declaration from
. off the lands of tho said Seigniory and remoyed the same oat of the possessioB
of the>aaid plaintiff and to give a colour to thp said onlawfalaot ; the agreement
fyled by ^e defenclaQt en garimtU was afterwards drawn ap.
^ ) This pames having gone to^p^f ; the * "
bjtiiem: " : :___^^

' The parties to niroid costs, admit :—

!•. That the plaintiff U rested with tb« lands of the Seignioijof Sault St.
Louis in tnat for the whole tribe of Indians therein residing as providud hv in

the statutoln that behalf and thlTthe land firom which thewood seised [n this

'. '»

7-

SUPERIOli COURT, 1858.

915

eanse wa« cut and carried off was witliin ih« WmU, ^e t\ ^ ■, a. .

♦Iiof .i.„ .. • • 1 1 /. . "'. »■ ^"""' lie iimiUof the said So cniorv and CoumiMionMc

tl.at^tl.0 principal defendant is not of Indian blood. iwSISlSSSb

« r ^',"1 •*'* '" u'"' ''"''''"« •" "*" ""'^ ^^"'S-'^^'y of which th. defendaut '^*-
«ir«ran/»«., one, have certain right, of property to wit : Tlie polertoi^--^'''^
upon portions of the uncleared lands of the said I'miJ^^Tr^cTZ^
VdeanngaudcuUivatinMhesani^fp^^^^
. 8 . Tljatall Indians TO^dTngJa the said Seigniory have the'riirht M «,.f

♦ . 1 hat the possession or occupation of any ^orjtlon of land^n ilie said a«i

6 Thatthirquesti'onoftheWghtoflncliahs-tosellwoodoffthelandtofthfl ' •
«..d8e.gn*j^ has agitated the said conimuni^yoi Indians f^a ~

W^nod and hat thechiefs thereof h,d warned the said Coai™„„ity not totaffio

. right to forbid the sale of wood so cut as aforesaid, and neither the defendZ
nor defendants, ^amn^i. pM ignorance that such tra^c was orbidcS

^ffi« J ^ . K^;. *'^ """''"^ ^'* "•' ^•'*'«' -«'« "«y awareVr'.2d ' ^
traffic being forbidden as aforesaid.

tion. that IS to say, the lot bfground described in ^he plea fyled by deflrr^
^ar«n u,, which lot of ground was at the time of the seizure and L thetime Z

he sale made by the said defendant en ^a.a„.^ to the principal deflnd^^^^^

TrTflfZl^'^^^^^^^^ - 'he admis- . %

7^'Ar a' *"'*f**''"""'''""«"*^*''*»*Sr'««'n«nt«ndbargainmadebetween
• In' r ?"' *''t«'^-<'ant«»^am«..V according to th! sale anSll ,.

«on made and given by the latter to the former thatahe drfendant ha. c^^^^^^
wood or caused the said wood, to be cut and carried off. «» «« the

The part«» having been he,rd upon the merits, the Court gave judi^fnt i*
^Zu^i"" P"°"P»' P'""*'^' ''>•«'» « '"-'"^ -follows : J'«*««»«»t '«>

>'TheCourthiivmgheardthepI.intiffandtheaefendant«»aa«„&VW,i. •
eciun«,l upon the merit, of t^ii, cause a. well upon theprincioafdem^rf 7 ^'"
thecfc«a.«fe«.^am^. thVprindpal Defenda'Tt nothS^^JforS'
pnj.^«^dej«nd .nd^i^foreclosed from •odoing.^a^lil^^S'i tt^:^
c*Hlmg«,p^of wcord,.ttd ieen the admfaaton. m«le and giren bytheilS-

>:

., .... r — ' of <he wood in tfii. aanml lii^t^J' *» i.i^

818

SUPERIOR COURT, 18S8.

<f^J;rt^ofOnge dkj not by reason of the ngreeraont dated tlie eiglUeenthdayof Doconibor
ono-thmisnml eight hundred and flfty-fonr and by him in the said cause filed as
his exhibit numb^ one, acquire any right to cut tlie said wood and to rornovo
thence the same in manner and form as in and by the said agreement and by
the exception of the said Dof^-ndant en gamntie is set forlli, dismissing the said
exceptibn and adjudging upon tlio merits of tj»e sjtid principal demand; doth
- declare the attachment or aaiaie reveiidication made in this cause of about twelve
cords of fire wood good and valid and doth declare the sarhe to be Uie propoity
of the said Plaintiff in liis said capacity ,niNl it is ordered that the said twelve cords
of fire wood be delivered up and restored to the said Plaintiff in his said capacity
and the Court doth condemn the defendant Louis Payant dit St. Onge to pay
the costs of this action and as to any other or further conclusions by the Plaintiff
in and by his said declaration taken the same is hence dismissed; and the Court
adjudging upon the demande en garantie in this cause : it is considered and
adj'Qdged that thd said Defendant en garantie Saro OnSnnoron do guariintee
indemnify and hold harndes^ the said principal Defendant and Plaintiff en
garantie Louis Payant dit St. Onge from the condemnation herein pronounced
against him." , -

Dunhp, Attorney for principal Plaintiff. , '"

Loranger et Pominville, Attorneys for prinoipal Defendant and PUdntiff 90
. garantie. ° •

CottnoZ, Attorney for Defendant en garantie. «

P.B.Ii.) .

COURT OP QUEEN'S BEjrCH.
IN APPEAL.
From tbb Diitbiot or UontruIi. * /

MONTBBAL. 9TH JVNB. 1809.

Coram Sir L. H. Lafomtainb, Bart., C. J., Atlwim, J., Duval, J., MBRXDnW) J> .

C. MONDBUCT, J.

No. 51.
mANBNTSIAflA.

AKWIItBNTBBTAli.»

Appellsat.

Sespondorts^

X

\ •

Held.— That the seonrity Ixmd strcn In ^ipMl I7 Indians la valid, inaailittoh as in the imsmt eaWtho
jwMmi^ who bMMM aseoritiaa warc^aa ^wearad hj the aOdaviti, is poaatwion aa prawialCM
fimi^Mng to tha Indian cuatoniafy law, of cartaiu wal aatato altnatiid and Mnf within tWtiaet of
: toBdappwprfatadtothonsaaoftho tribe to which »h«yheloBged. :^^.,^,^_,^_]__^__j^^_-2^^^Z^-..^...-

The Betpondenta having made a motion to aet ande tlieaeoiiritj g^veo t>7 the
AppalUnt, (which aeonrity connatad of two Indiana, Ignaoa Ka^eiatahera and
Thnmaa Ta!miitWn)i ■ "'^'* *— imbjmI wtBrnable on tha 80th April 18g8. and.

whieh rale ia in the following worda :

■f/V

COUflV OP QUEENS BENCH, 1:869

i. .;',•, .. ,,

817

-y J ^ -^^^^ — ■ ■-■■ ■ ^rt^^Ml' ■ II M I "*

" rt U moved on the ftrt of the .aia Re.| ondeiUs InH.inuch as tl.o Appellant
ban not pfivon Rood and.|u^ciont «.curity in the muniier required by law to
entitle bim to lh« pregertt appeal, and inasmuch as ib^ f.oci|rity by the appellant
in lhwcftu«o given is in.iilik,ie„t, tl.o sureties in the Security Iwnd meniioned
being valueless and m w^rth the amount in which th.y justifiod as will more
fully appear by ihe.HffldH/its herewith fyle.l, that thf security given by the
appellant upon the p^po_ni appeal be doclare<l Insufficient And null and void and
this appeal dismissed <vitirco.ts, unless cause to the contrary U shown on the
30th April instant;-^" * '

It is ordered that^the appelhnt do shew oanso io the contrary on Saturday
the thirtieth day of April instunt, tdtting the Court. ' \ ;

The Uespondentrf fylo.J in support of il^eir rule fofir affidavits to establish tiie
l»K>lvon.!y of th« securities. On the part oi the appellant, fo.ir oountAr affidavits
„ were produced in wltjcrl, it js stated : quo Ic dit Thomas Tahanlison est propria
ta.ro et en possession de I'immeuble d6crit en I'acte de donation on daidu 81
Mars 18*9, Mire Lepailleur, N.P., et depuis ^viron cinq ans et qu'il a continue
a 1 6tre ju^qu A ce jour sans iuterruptio... II a.rivo souvent quo les Sau.%es
dansUtendue de la Seigneurie du Sault St. Louis, po.s6dont des terros et en
8ont r«pul«s et en sont r6ellement propriitaiies sans avoir de litre devaiit
notaires, ni par. 6crit sous soi..g-priv6. U moiti6. indiviso de I'immeuble d6crit
41 acte de donation susnientionnd vaudrait pour des blancs, an moins quatrecent
pias^rM^Sur la ditemoiti6 indiviso de-1'immeuble appartenant au dit Thoma,
laharttitfo,., .1 y a uno maison neuve qu'H a construite I'automne dernier, et unc
6curie. i Oest uuo maison do vingt pieds quarrfes couverto en bardeaux L'6cu
no est coavorte en planches et bi -n bonne. Je sais que I^mace Kanoratahere ,
possede Jn emplacement «itu6 au Village du S;mlt S^. Louis, sur lequel il v'a\
uufe maison en pierre k deux 6tago^ dans laquelle il reside et qui vaut an moins
huit cents pms^es. II possfi.lo cet emplace.nent depuis que j'ai l'4ge do con-
aaissance con^me propri6tair«, un<t terre d'ipeu pr6s quatrevingts arpents on
superTice, dan^ la Sjs.gneurie du Sault St. Louis, pr6« de la pa*roisse St. Isidore
v«Hant ipea prdssix cents piastres; je sais qu'il possideaussi comlne propriitaire'
trow Isle, sur lesquelle. il cnltive du foin, dans les limites'de U dite Seigneurie
et cela depu.. plus do dix ans^ces trois Isles peuvent valoir cent piastres. Le'
d,t Ignwe Kaneratahere tient maison comme susdit, aveo sa famille, et poss^de

dettea, et je n'ai paa eonnaiseance qu'il ait dtd poursiiivi en justice.

The appeal bond bad been given in December 1868. The deed of gift fyled
by^lje AppeUant with hi. affidavit, wa. male and p«sed on the .l.t M^X

Cfarter, for the Ea.pondent. contended that.Indian. could not hold in their
own name immoveable property .itnated within the limit, of .oeh tmct. of Jd
M we^e oocoB,ed by them in thi. Province, and eited the following XoritieT^

ilf o * !« "^- "•"-^^ 1-Indlw land. ve.ted in a commiJoS^*
Sect 2..^AU luito to be brought by or '

against commiMieBei^

"0««^^=OoiBaiK8o5«Ttt. poww to eooctd^ leiM or chain nrudi l«.d.

m r

COURT OF QUEKN'8 BENCH, 1869.

NlaiKmtalaM
AkwlranU.

v-

•f-

No. GO*. The Cominiwniuner of Indian Undt for Lowor Cnnadii v». Louis
PayMnt dit 8t Oiijio, and Onganoron defendant engamntie. Under thioitatutc,

Jxutieei Day, Smiti^i. an<i Mondelet, on 2»rd March 1886, rcn.lenMl jii.l)({inenl
RiiitHining n revendication of woixl cut in tho msigniory in queiition. Itefcrred
to 7ih head of ailiitiMioni {y\M, eatublinliing tliat tnn cordit of the wood iind
been out pn land in the occupation of Defendant «l garantit. . ,

The judgrtierit deolaron \\» had no right or title by] virtue whereof he could nell
the, wood and Carter, for Keapondent contended that it austninn tho |>ro|><mition
that the lands in ShuU St. Louis and the right of property are vested in the
commiMioner. , ' t

Kev. Statute p. M3. , '

17 0«o. 3, ch. 7 B. 3. — Prohibits persons living in any Indinn village withoat
s license.
~"^Rev. Statute, p. 674. '

8 A 4 Vic. ch. 44, leo. 2. Govemoi; may order any person resident in Indian
▼illflge to remove therefrom lAider a penalty and imprisonment. .

The rale taken by the Respondents was disckarged with costs.

The judginent was as follows : , '

, La cour apr^a avoir ontondu I'lntim^ sur sa motion du trent£ Avril dernier,
ainsi que 1' Appelant, par leurs avocafs, examini le dossier en cour de premidre
instance et les pieces justiHcatives k I'appui du la' dite motion ainsi que colles 4
I'encontre et sur le totit raCirement d61ib6r6; rejotte la dite motion'^nveo d^pena^

Doutre ds Luouit, Atturnoys for Appellant.

Carter, Attorney for Respondent.
(P.».U

IN APPEAL. '

TBOH TdB 8tn>BRI<)B CODBT, DI8TBI0T OP MONTRKAU r^
MONTREAL, 6th JUNE, 1859. £ —

.^»ram Sir L. H. LaFontainb, Bart., C. J., Xtl^ht; J., Dvval, J.,
' ' ■ Mbbbdith'J. ■" ^ ■ ^' ,'.. ■♦.

• - , ■ ^ ' N '\ ,.■

yrmWKt,(Ftaiutil^imth0 Court biutmyf

Appellant.

, ASD

ahAXK,lDiflnUbmt in tk* Court Mow.)

. Bctpondent. /*

OhMBK-^ourvtMHr to OoMT&AJiioT HI8 OWN Bsoim. V^ .

ftwaMunofmoaejrwMgivMlqrarror.andthatlMdldnot aotnally fMnlve the

A

HsU. lo. ThataderkU eompetcnttopi«f«tlwtarMdptghmttyhlmftirli]sei]q>lQrarto«eiutoii^a

" ■■ moiM9 aeknow-
lad|i4l9tlMi«oeipt. i>

!•. thai tiie weiRht to Im gtrm to the taatfanoar'or tho etork Is aqntsUon aa to his endibUitjwIildi

loTthsi

The facU of tbia oase fully i^pMr <roiq ,tbi| ^port of tho jiu|gin«Dt of th«
Couift b«Iotfr, 8 L. C. Jurist, p. 89-081 \1 .

\.

COURT OF QUBBN'S^ BBNCH, 1869.

"X

'-^

819

■•■Aicta

Sin, L. H. LAronTAiNB, Bart., JujM^n-crwf.— LV.bjot d« catie iMtton Mt de
Moouvrar du d^fendeur I* ■oinmfl ,d«^X50, ImUnca d'un billet full pur lui 4
I'ordre du damandeur, l« 7 M«i 18ft»; pourSe pxlncipnl d«i £103 I7i^ td. pay*--
bifl 4 aix muia. J •> , V /

L'ltction a H6 iiitent6« en AoAt 1857. '

Le IMifandaur oppuM 4 pette danymdadeax regua, Pun du 3 Hopterabre 18fi«,
dontiA e( aifptS par le domandeur lui mAnia, pour JfiA en d extmptt du billet, «t
I'aiitre du 17 Novembre do la in6me ann«e, dd(nn6 et algni par Uufraane, teneur
de lirrea du demandejfr. Co dernier re^u wt en <!«m termoa. " ReceWed from
" Mr. W. 0. Clark the aum of Xll2 17a., Id. ^., being on aeeount of note due'
" 10th inaUnt." \ > / // ^

Lea moyUnU r^nnia dea deux refua forment \m aomme de £167 17b., Id.'
que le ddfendeur pretend avoir payAe j ce qui faiti Xfl," qu'il aurait (myda de trop[
Auasi, par Tune de aea cnnoluaiona, ae reaetviJ-t-il lip droit <le lea reUter.

Le demandeur rfippnd que c'eat par erreur et ailr lea faus^ r(pr6aentationa
du d^fendeur, que aon coinmia Diifreane a «l6 port« 4 lui donnerjie 17 Noveni-
bre, un re^u de £112 178. Id. tandia;)ue ce jour I4ilc dAfondeur jn'avait de fait
payda que la aomme do £67 17a. Id. ce qui, aveo l<L £5b re?ua le 3 Septembre
Rr^codeot, faiaait la diUta^aomine de £112 17a., Id lai»aant encLre due la dite
balance de £50. ^

Voici comment lea faita aont expliqu6a dana le lArAoignage de Dufreane. La
^ matiadu 17 Novembre 1866,led6fendeur va I<| trouve^ et lui paiii Je57 17a., id.
il obtient un re^u do cette aomme. II ^t en diaant iu'i'l reviendra dana TaprAa^
midi et qne probablomont il paiora la balance. II revlent en'effet dana cet aprl.^
midi, et dit-qu'il a diapoai de a^a fonda phoz d'autrea Lrchandai etqa'il nepeut
.paa payer la balance. .11 repr6«ente 4 Dufreane qu'il tvait Juparavant pay«
£66 qu'il no ponwt paa en avoir de re^u, ot il le pH( -do voulLir bien lui an
donner un. Dufreane, le croyant aur parole, roprend e reju de- £67 l7s ^ Td.
qn'il lui avait doling le matin, et lui en fait un autre pouf la aomme de
£112 178., Id. Dufreane n'avait paa vu le reju donU par lo deinandenr le 8

WMtMf
Ckwb.

0

it;

Septembrj pi-£c6dont Si ce timoignage est admis, la
complete ; le re^u du 17 Novembre ne doit valoir quo

X pluaieura circonstancea qai viennent. appuyer ce t^mt lignage. Le reciT^ 17

Novembre n'eat, commo celui du 3 Septembre, donn6

Oeat 14 une declaration quo le d6fendoor accepte on ponaitt le re9U du 17 No-
vembre, qu'il cherohe 4 faire valoir aujourd'hai. II ne domande paa qu'on lui
/emette aon billet, aucontraire,ce billet continue 4 naterenire lea hiaina da

e billet n'^tait paa entid-

demandeur, ce qui est nne trie forte prdanmption que

remont, acquitt*. De plua, si le rc^u da 17 NovembreLit valoir pi^urUaJmrne

de £112 17a., Id. alora le d^fendeur aurait ptlf6 £5 d9 plaa que le monUntda

billet II est vrai que le d6fendeur r6pond.4 c6l4 que

petit compte courant contre'lui, maia ce compte n'dtait

«ch«ance, et le re^u faitexpress^ment mentfon quela wimmepay^o ne I'totqu'en

4 compte da billets Dana lea livrea do demandeur, crJdit n'eat donni «u d«- /

fendenr que de deuK aomniea, I'une da £fij^ - - - '

pay^e la a

preuve du demandeur eat
pour £57 17b., Id. II y

qu'en d eompte du billet,

Septambw, et r»otra da

£«7178, id. pay6e lo 17 Novembre ^

f

;..p yip

8S0

COUllT OF QtlBKN'S BBNCn, idflO.

Whiliiny

'Owk.

Diifrwno n'c»t piw lo muI t6moin MiiminA. Un mitre ooinml« dfiiemAn<i«ni
, (Jmvvlk., n oil (|«a convorwilorw ttir c« •ij.-t iirec l« <l«ri<n<liMir «|iii liii m .lidar*.
" tliut. h<l«pt no Oiwh llook" tiiiiin " tlint li« liml in hin min.l that ho lia.t pni.i
"it loiij( Mjt.. but wiiH not |KHitiv«." Et apri* <|imi (jrwvollii lui «ftt <lit' qua loa
livro«<lu.lomnri.l..ur iM(|.ii.|oiinnl.'nl.;r<S.lifi|u« .lo ,\mx ropmo* mixlito* do
Xflfl ot .|« £m I7i.^ hi, '• tU» ilufeiuliiiil" njoiito Ornvelle « wiUMti«Hf(l tliitltlic
"|.lainlin-« MooIm w.-ro i)ll rif^ht."

Ui dAfofultnir voiit tiror livnntHjje d'uno lottro que le doinnn.lour liil a fait
♦criro pnr fJiivollv, l« 2 Mni 1867, ot tlnn* Ihi^iihIIo Iu «l«in/Hidt'ur no reconnaH
•voir rc9u on tont (|tio £l 12 17ii, td.anvoir, £5R la 3 Septoml)ro, «t jEft7 17«., Id,"
111 27 Novftinlm', l«ft«. " Hut "dit-il" if you Iimvo « B«imrftto receipt for the Mi
" pai»l in Soptonibor y.iu nro nil ri|;lit.V >

, Lo ro9ii «</»firrf »'il oxintait, n'*tnit p(^ tin nqn qui dut t'lippliquor mux £56
q«« Itt domnnrlonr nsconnaiiiiall li|i-ni(in« iivoir regu le 3 8opt<^n»br«, pnrtio
_ qu'Hlors CO n'o6t pa* 6t6 nn paiemont lijHMri, dii»lln«». de calui-IA, mniA c« devait
Atro un ro^u qui ofit 6tal»li 1^ paitfnient d'uno tocvindo Bomiiie do JBflS B*pnri
distincto de la promii-n', pui*quo lo d6fondour p^6tondait avoir fnAt, un t«l i>aie-
mcnt Aana avoir prin un rofu. . ,. ' ^

Jo oroin quo o'ett un can da»9 loquel lea cirebiMtancm jtistiflent la preUro par
des oxplications do IVffot donl m tro«ive naitti lo dAf.mdour, ot qn'il chorclie 4
fairo valoir au prijudite du difinandeur pour touto la sommo qui, par suite do
BOS raussoK r«>pr6Hentat^on«, n'y trouvo 6tre par orrour £nonc6o.

Tho judgment in appeal was motive as follows : —

The Court, Ac. ♦ ♦ • • * .

♦• Seeing that tho said Respondent, on tho sovonth day of May, 1886, at the
•* city of Montreal, nindo tho promissory note mentioned in the declaration iu this
•• cau89, filed for one hundre<I and sixty-two pounds sevontoen shillings and one
" penny, in manner and form as in the said doclaratiom mentioned, and then and
" there delivered tho 'said promissory note to the Ap|)ell«nt. *r

"Seeing also that the said Uospondent, on the 3rd day of Septerabw, 1856,
" paid to the said Appellant, on account of the said promissory not«5, tho sum of
"fifty-five pounds, currency, and on th« seventeentli day of November, oDe
♦' thousand eight hundred and fifty-six, the sum of fifty-seven pounds sovonteen"^
" shillings and one penny, and considering that the said two sums of money aro.
«• the only sums of monisy paid by Clio B«8pondent to the Appellant on account
" of the said promisMrjr note, the receipt of the 17th day of November, 1856,
" filed in ttis cause, as tho Defendant's Exhibit Number Two having been givoa
«• by error as an acknowledgraont of the said two payments, in consequence of
•• the Kespondent havipg erroneously informed one Luc. A. Diffresne, a clprk in
*• the employ of the Appellant, and who gave the said last-mentioned re^lpt,
" that he the said Respondent had not boon given a receipt for tho said payment

." of fifty-five pounds, currency, at the time it was made. And considering that-
" by reason of the premises, a balance of fifty pounds cWrency, with interest
♦•from the 10th day of November, 1856, remained due by the Respondent to
" tho Appelltot upon tho sud promissory note at the time of the inatitution of

■ HjtLo preaent-aetion, and ^ciufuie i,Uat"Tirtho judgiueut pronoUBCfld Pj |l>o

— "4

' •■•* '

COtJRT 0PQUEKN8 BKNCH, 1859.

m

••CoMrt balow, on tiit SOth diiy of April, 1858, diimlMlng t)i« «ction of tli«
•• AppelUnt there ia error, <Iotli in ooniM?qufln<!«i ruv«i*u, sot Mido, and rhiiuI
" tbe wid jiidginont m pronounced by tho Court bolow, on tho 80lh day of
" April, 1868, and thii Court procMdingto givo aucli Judgment u the Court
•* Im»Iow ought to Imvo given, dotii cond«mti the mid Uoifiondont to pay tJiOMld
* turn of Xao, currency, being tbe bninnce «> duo upon tlio iwid proniiMory notii
" wllh ITitorotl from the 10th d»y of November, I8ftfl, until paid.

" Ami it it orduri'd timt tho Mtd ApiwIUnt do recover from the mild
" Respondent tho c6nU by him the Appellant incurred a» well iu the Court
" ImIowm in thla Court.
•• (Tho Ilonorrtble Mr. Juatiee Duval Ji»uintie»te.")
Tornmce A Mmrrit, for Appellanta. ,

p //. Stuart, for Ueapondenl. -j, - *

N.-.^

WMlaW
Oariu

»'s^

iili 'I

£r

\M:

COIIR SUP^RIEURE.

9' * /''

^ DISTttlOT Dl TBRRBBONNB. / ,

•" ■ ■ ^ /

^ IT. lOilOLARTIQUR. LE 16 MAI IMWb

Coram Badolky, J. -^

Ne.w. " . ,

Prevoat va. Lerouw,

J>igt-Qu'un prii at, vent.. licul m componutr w «■« die do»ma«(ei r«MlUnt de ta'fraude ou dV
dol tfvldsnt. ot quo d»iM re»p«oe U fraude est ptmme. et roaipenution doit ••««bllr.

Lo 20 Ootobre 1847, /. A. Berth^lot, icuior, vend uno terre aitude A St.
J6r6mo, i Joacph Loroux a/uif Cflyrdinal., le D6fondeur, moyennant lOOO livrea
ancien cours, payftblo en 10 pai«aiena do lOO livreg ohaque, aveo int6r6t d9
I'dchfianco ; h cot »cto Paaolial Peraillier dit Lachapello intorvint ot se porta
caution aimplo du D6fendeur, k la urarantio (lu prix de vente, ot hypoth6qu»
uno torro ausai aitude k St. J6r6mo, A reflfot de son cautionnement Enrtgiatre-
mont do Tacto de vcnte, le 13 Novem^re. 1847. _^

to 20 Janvier 1856, le D6fondour vend aa terre k Cyrille, wttlUa, qui Jimd
le 1« Mara 1850, k Paul DeschambauU.

Lo 3 Novembro 1848, M. Dotthdiot tranaporto la balance do aon prix do vente
k Toussaint Barbeau, acceptation du tranaport par lo Dcfendcur le 25 Mara
1830. Le 28 Mai 1850, Toussaint Barbeau tranaporte la balance du dit prix
•^^e vente 4 Melchior Provost, notaire, A St. J6r6mo. Signification au D6fen- "
tfcur 1^.^ F6vri«r 1857. Le 6 Mara 1857, fiction' hypoth6cairo par MelcW
; Privofit, centre Paul DeachambaiiJt, alora dfitpnteur actuel de rimmoublo affect*
audit prix de vente, a'^Ievant alora on capital ct int6r§t i £40 ISs 8d. Le
18 Avril 1867, Paul Deachambault d^laiwe rhferitago, et curateur eat cri66 au
d^laisaemeiit J^ 21 Juillot 1867, execution centre I'immeublo. U 23 DAcel*? .
bre 1837, vente do la terre adjugde pour £10. Lea fraia de la pouranite a'6W- '^^
ffpnt^ fH ia idf et fa*i<^ I* wnte gif teH5h^f-j&i4-«» M "TSatercg

§

m

COtJR SUPESIEURE, 1869.

Prevoit:

VI.'

Iieroui.

■r

Bommes foment cello dejE85 l^a 8d., sur laqnelle il faut d6di|ire celle de £lO
montantde la vente op6r6q par le ih^rif, laissant ainsi cello de £76 128 8d
encore dfto, pour lo recouvrement do laquelle Melchior Pl-^vo/jt, ayant di«cut6
I'immeuble vendu an Defendeur, avail le droit de poursuivre M. Lachapelle, la
caution. Qlio le I)6fondeiir_ so troure propri6taire, posseteeur et d6tenCeur de
rimmeuble affect* par M. Lachapelle i la garantie de son cautionnement par
I'acte du 20 Octobre 1847. Le U Janvier 1858, Melcbior PrivdsJ transporte
A \Vilfrid Privosti le Demnndeur, la balance dfte, Bavojr, £76 12a Sd^ ettoni
les rnt4r6t8 6chu8 et k 6cbeoJr. . [ - .

L'aciion est done port6e pour le-irecouvrement de la dite somme de £is 12«
8d. hypothecairement contro le Defendeur.
A cette action le Defendeur a plaid6: lo. par exception pdremptoire quo
' Toussaint Barbeau, cfe.lant de Melcbior Provost, itant onrateur i la soocession
vacante do Luckesey, et vonlant so d^mettredesacuratelle.s'addressaanD^fen-
deur, et lui remit cc qu'il avait en mains appartennnt i cc^to succession, deduc-
tion faite du prix de vente dh alors par I'acte du .29 detobro 1847, et conclat
k la nullit6 des^ansports et plaidait paiement; 2o. Par une autre exception p6.
remptoire, le Defendeur alUgue, quMl a.6t6 firaud6 par Melcbior Prevost; que
le jour fix6 pour la vente, par le sbArif, de la teri« saisie et vendue snfle .
curateur, an dilaissement, le defendeur se trouvait au bureau ,de Melcbior Pr6-
vo%t k St. J6r6m*, que ti et rAor^, Pr6vo8t aurait dit k unc vingtaine de pe>8on-
nes^lors presentes ets'addressant au Defendeur de ne pas encherir sur la dite
terre, que Jo Dr. Doribn 6tait un des cr6ancicrs du Defendeur, qu'il avait trom- *
p6 le D6fendeur et qu'il fallait lui faire perdre sa crfeance, que le Defendeur
6tait pnuvre et qu'il fallait lui faire avoir sa terre et Apargner des frais, qu'il '
(Provost) allatt acbeter la dite terre pour une bagatelle et la remettrait de suite
«a Defendeur, qui pourrait aiiisi lavendre et payer ses creanciers ; que rendu 4
I'enchife, pereonne ne mit, et la propri6t6 fnt adjug6e1t MelcbioV Pr6vost pour .
,£10, que la terre valait alors et aurait pu se vendre £125, au moins, que se fiant
^Bur la promesse et la parole de Melcbior Prfevost, le Defendeur serait entro en
firrangenient immSdiatement pour revendre la dite terre & un nomm6 Robert*
Que Robert et lui se sout ensuite addressfi plusieurs fois au dit Melcbior Provost,
pour se faire consentir la remise de la terre,, Jnais en vain, et que Melcbior Pr6-
vopt I'a ensuite revendne au pome Paul Deschambault qui I'avait ddji dilais-
fl6e ; que si Melcbior Prevost n'eut pas agi do fraude et pftr dol pour so faire
adjuger la ^te terre, pour on prix nominal et tres modique.ellc se serait vendue
andeU de £l26, somme plus que suffisante pour dteindreiadettedu Defendeur;
qu'ainsi le dit Melcbior Provost a cause au Defendeur des dommages de £100
et audel&, sonvhie plus ^i^e Bifffisante pour ^teindre it compenser celle que le
Demandeur reclame ; le B^mapdeur comme cessiontiaire de Melcbior Pr^voat
est garant do la fraude de ce dernier. Conclusion enWnsdquence.

Le Demandeur avT6pondu^ en niant les all6gu68de la premiere exception, et
all6guant eto r^ponse k la seconde, que le D6fendeur 6tait ddbiteur du dit Mel-
cbior Provost, pour les sottimcs considerables, qui Cfes cr^ances ^taient chiro-^
-gFftpbti;«HM?t^eaeuKtiolde^MdchiorPr6TO8lra-6tente^0lfl0ire
demniser de ces creancer, en ayant la terre de la maniSre qu'il I'a obtenue ; qu'il
n'v a°aucun dol ni fraude ct que le Defendeur n'a souSert aucun dommage.

- ,\

COUR SUPERIEURE, 1650.

?28

* Le D^fendeor tin pas £tabli, en preuve, sa premiere exception, maia^il a
prouv6pard(i]uxt6inoins,cequiB'eat pass6 le jourdel'adjudication de la terre (Sa
question, avant etapr^s, de manidre 4 ne laisser aucun doutesurlespromesseaf^o
Melohior Pr^Tost au Dofendeur, de lui reiuettre la terre, et de son refus.de le
faire ensuite, et enfin.de> dornmagea consistant dans la difference depuls £10 4

^ £12S. ■ "^ ■'■■•.;:;■;■'■".,. . ' ' .",• „. ' "" "\

PcR Curiam.— La Yraude .est prouv^e. tl n'y a aucun donte qu'il y avait

-intention de tromper te D^iendeur et aucun bomme de position de ne devrait

' se rendre coupable de tels actes. La preuve des tdmoins est positive. Le

cddant a proniis ' avant I'adjudication d'acheter la terre pour le Defendeur,

Jl se fait adjuger la terre pour 3610,— fU empftcbe les personnes pr^sentes

d'enchdrir, sous prdtexte qu'il veiit faire du bien au Defendeur, lui v«nir en

aide et 6pargner les frais; afin d'arriver plus s&renient k ses fins, il dit k

Lachcpelle, un des t^moins produits, rous 6tes crdancier du D6fend$ur, vous

venez pour eochdrir; sur r6ponse affirmative, il dit k Lacbapeile, je vais paye'

votredette, mais, n'encb^tissez paj^ celui-ci ne le fait pas quoique dScidd k

porter son enchSre jusqu'4 8000 livres. Aprds Tadjudicatipn^ le c6dant

renouvelle ses promesses, mais alors et alors seulement il dit au Defendeur, tQ

me dois, mais tu me payeras, I'autre consent ; le Defendeur avait pris desltrran-

gemens avec Robert, I'autre t^moin, pour lui vend re la terre, t'ous deux font

differents voyages" chez le c6d^t mais sous diff(6Fents pritextes, il les

eioigne et enfin il vend la terre .Ik Paul Descbambault. S'il-eut eu

I'intentioh de reraettre la teirre aii Defendeur, ne pouVaitil pas de suite faire

metti^ le nom da Defendeur au lieu du sien, 'oomme adjudicataire, et alors il

aurait accobipli ses promesses, mais non, dans un but de fraude, il 6loigne les

ench^risseurs, en dSsinti^resge Juti, et se fait adjuger la terre'pour une bagatelle.

Plus encore, le Demandenr a plibduit le compte du c^dant contre lo

Ddfendeur, ou Ton trouve des i^arges dnormes et que les hommes les plus

haut plac6s daps leur profession, comme avocat on notaire, n'aaraient voulu

coucher p^r 6crit, et il charge mfttne au Defendeur le eontrA. du shirif et sea /

voyages et vacations pour 6lre vehu ii Montreal, et obtenir ce contrat, X? lOs.

Ensuite totalisant le tout, Udpnne credit au Ddfendetir de la valeur de sa terre

qu'il estime lui-mdme k £125. II teconnait done par 1^ que «ett«.terre valait

au moins cette somme ; la trausafetion de sa part a 'done 6t6 faite contre

la bonne foi,"ie| tk Cour est dVis que les dommages sent prouvSs exister

au montant de la diff<§rence "depuis £10 qub la terre a 6t6 adjug^e k

' celle de £1S'5, que le t^moin Lachapelle declare lu|*^6me q;i'il ranraitrpayie
en sorte que la comji^nsation est admise; le Demandeur fr^re du c^dant ne
parait avoir eu part' dans cette fraude, ni&me il dit en ignorer I'existenceJ I'eut-il
Cbnno, il est probable que le , savant demandeur li'aurait pas consenii k en
prendre cession. Malbeare9emenij>our lui il a oubli6 de nier Tarticuli^ion de
faits fil6e en «;ette causia par leTDAfendeur o(k il est dit avoir connu tous oes
faits et n'ayant pas nie ces alleguds il est censfc pif la loi les admettre, ainsi po\ir ^
cette canse et comme cessionnaire du djt Mclchior Pr(Svo(»t: *tant

PrWM

rt.
Leroui.

.^ «r

■■••I

5 m

ij^arantjjlegf^ifal.

de son e6dant, la compensation doit 8tre admise, et Taction est dibout^e aveo
^«Pf" 8. Action d6bout6e

Arthur Dumas, avocat du demandeur.
■ Ouimet tt Denis, avocats da Defendeur. ' - \ ' f

G.o.)

8^4

COTTR SUFERIEURE, 1860. ^

MONTREAL, 31 WtAUS, 1869.
» ' Coram SMITH, J.

-'•■.' . ' No, 80..;-"^ ' ' '

Ruttell TB. Foumier, and Rivet, opposo^

Jof^. 1o. Que la femme tons puiisanco do miiri no pcut valablement rononeer h son hypot liOquo lor
le» bieni do sou marl au prolltidos crtancierg de ce dcriiicr, pout lo paiemout d'uno rcn o viag6re
quo son contratdcmariagoluldoniio pour tout douairo.' ^' - ^^

So, Quo telle renonciatiouost en contravention aux dispositions del* 4 TlO! oh: SO; 'eomine <Kant nn
oautionnement indirect.
n^ . ,,.■■,, ■'.-.., ■^'■■,

L'opposant, Louis Rivet, rdcfamait par son opposition afin de coifterVer les

arrdrages d'une rente viagerecreo, en faveur de la Ddfonderesse, par feu Qlmrles

Rocbriino dit Larocque son dpoux d^c^dd, en verta de leur cbntrat de manage

TC9U lo 22 Avril 1833, Mtre Gironard N.P. et enrfegistrfi le 30 Septembre 1844.

L'opposant all^guait qu'it arait une hypdtlieque sur les biens immeuLH<» saisis

et vendus sur la D^fenderesso en sa quality de ti^trice aux enfants nds de son

maria<^ areo le dit Larocqne e»,que ses biens formnnt partie de la succes

de e#^erq)er,il devait fetre pay6 des arr^ragesde cette rente sur leproduitde la

' vente do ces immeubles. L'opposant £tait criancier de cette^rente en vcrtu de

divejs transports.

La Demanderesse*contesta cetto opposition- par divers moyens de contestation

et entr'antrcs elle allognait : que par acte de renonciaUon re9u le 26 Oclobre

1846, par devant Mtre Labadie N.P. et enrogistrd, la DSfcndcresse avait renonc6

■■^k son hypoth^que sur les immeubles saisis et vendus; pour le paiement do uette

rente.

L'opposant ayant r6pondu splcialemdnt que cette renonciation avtut 6t6 faite

par la O^fsnderesse durant son maringe ; quecons^quemraent elle ^tajj^-nulle, vfk

surtout qu'elle 6tait un v^itable cautionncment indirect en' faveur de son mari

qui avait obtenu d'elle cette d6charge en faveur da sa cr^anciere la Demanderesse,

et la preuve de cch faits ayant ct6 administrie devaht la<I!our; les parties furent

entendues au na^rite.' <

L'opposition fut maintcnue par le jugeme'nt de Ja Cour fet la renonciation fuji

d6clar6o nulle sur les conclusions confornfes de la r^ponse speciale.

Le jngement de la Cour est motiVi^ comme suit :

" The Court having.heard the said plaintiff, and the said opposant Louis Rivet^

by their respective Counstel, upon the conlestation and moyens of contestation

jnade and fyled in^the cause by the said plaintiff to the opposition of the said

Louis Rivet, and also to that part of the draft of collocation and distribution

prepared By the Prothonotary of this Court, and fyled herein on the tenth day

of May, 1858, awarding the sum of £311 6s. 7d. to the said opposant on his

said opposition as therein mentioned, lijtving examined the proceedings, proof

of*ecord, ahd deliberated, considering that the said opposant, Louis Rivet, hath «,

«stab]ished the «naterial allegations of his said opposition, and that he is legally

, vested in thorights of the said Dame Julie Fournier, "the widow of the said late

-^haries-Hocbrnnedi^-Larocqne, asby^lrimsetrourin-iris^d opp(»ttioirT^^
the marriage contract \{ the said Charles Rocbrulhe dit Larocque and the sai

X!'

OUR SUPESBIEURE, 1859.

9S0

Dame Julie Fournier his wife, by which she, the said Daoie Julie Fournier, waft
endowed, by the said Charles Rocbrune dit Larocqua, witb the annual rent of
thirty-six pounds |>er annum, as fully set forth in the said opposition and moyena
of opposition of the said liobis Rivet; and further consideriag that the said
plaintiff in this cause, contesting the said opposition of tbe said Louis Rivet,
hath failed to establish tbe material allegations of her said cbntestattori, and
that by law the renunciation of the said Dame Julie Fournier to the hypoth^qne
created by tbe marriage contract of the said Pame Julie Fournier^ in ber favor,
on the immoveable property of her said husband, and the proceeds of whicb
are now before the Court for distribution, and set up by the said contestant in
bar of the said claim of the opposant, Louis Rivet; cannot be considered as valid
to hsvt the right of the said Louis Rivet to obtain the conclusions of his said
opposition; and further considering, that by law the conventioi agreed upon
by the said Charles Rocbrune dit Larocque and. the si^d Dame lulie Fournier
his wife, and stipulated in the aote-nuptial contract of the said parties, cannot be

~«lter^ or changed, evcnjbjyaaapit of the said parties, husband and wife, and
that any such change a^^Hv^ined in the said renunciation of the said Dame
Julie Fournier executeflHH|l|%aid Dame Julie Fournier,\ while W>iMj>uM<an«e
demari', is null and voiS^tm^ of Yio effec^to bar in law the right of- the sidd
Dame Julie Fournier, tp claim all the rights of hypotheqne existing in her favor
under the cpntfact of marriage or the rights of tbe said! Louis Rivet, as the
assignee of the said Dame Julie Foamier, to claim the said^rigbtsof bypothdque
in favour of the said 'annual rent; ''and further considering that the said
{'enunciation so set up by the said plaintiff is in violntio^ of the provisions of

^the fourth Victoria, chapter thirtv, and therefore alsp null and void, the Court
doth c^smiss the contestation of the said plaintiff of the opposition of the said
opposant, Louis Rivet, and doth maintain the said opposition with costs."
A, «& G. Bobertton, avoeats de la demanderesse.
JM/reno^e <]& Popn, avooats de Vopposant.

BUIMll
V*t

Voumler,

IIQNTRBAL, 30 SE^TEHBRB 1859.

~^ — -^ ----- . Cbmj» Smith, J. -' ,,

■ 1 No.«84.

• . ^ Jodoin V. Dubois.

Jugdt-^io Qne le droit de contoottion quant sux Soci6t&i de Construction, orsanii^ en vertu del
Statuts 12 Vict., ch. 67 ; 14 et|5 Vict;, oil. IS ; et 18 Vict., cli. 116. reside dani la pentuine du prAd-
dent ou *eor6taire de telle* aiMciatloM. ^

.i". Quo lamSquiiition doit 6tM addreMte au pr6iideut et directeui* ;
V 30. Que cette r^uiaition doit In^quer sp6oiaIement les objeti Ipour Ics^els la reunion est

.1^ . • ~ coiiYoqufie; . ■ r , • '

^ 40. Que la Itoe aection de I'acte ii^Viot, ch. lie, n'a pas'.abrog^ les dispodtions contenues en la
Tme section de I'aoto li Vict., 0I1. 67 et qvd sent cUdcinuft nipportfea ;
B*. Que les riglemcnts de ces asso&iations dotvent 6tre i^^^trte au dAiir de la Bme section de
l'aoteiaTict..oli.B7; '\

. " sorutin;

90. Qua Is president de oes associatioos doit prMder toutes le^
prteid«nae que les r^llements dotvent Mre paaste et modifl^

iMas et que Cest sous sa

•/ V

Jodoia
Dubois

Par sa raqu0te JibeU<fe,- Id demandeui all«5guait les faits suivants • .

"Que le dit Amable Jddoin,«t*un des actionnaimi dela " Sooi^M d« C6n».
Irao .on Canad.enne do MontrA^' dtarit^n corps puWio'et 'incorpar^S e» verttt
ojf low dtt pays, nommdment :^n vertu des statuts 12 Vict., ch. 67 ■ 14 et 15
y.ct.. oh 23; et 18 Vial., oh. 116, faisant affair, ,^ la' dite dtd.et tenant »o^
burejgjd affaires en la dito oit<J de Montr&l, an nuni^ro 36, irdr la rue 8t PraA-
yoia'Xaviordeladitedt^. . ^. ^ "

Quo lo dit Amable Jodoin est un des membres prfiteure de la dite Sooi<$t« de
Construction Canadienne de Mon'^rfal, et ce, dcpuis sa fondation.
^ Quo la dito SociiJt^ de Construction Canadienne de MontnSal, a fait etAddpUS ,
des r^glements qui sont enoore en force el qui n'onijamais 4M chi^ng^s, modifi<5B
ni *ppel& depuis son oiganisation et depuis la ptemiiie ^Itotion de aes diree^
teuh a antres offioiers. - --^ -~— -7 ,

Qu;cntpe iiftes rtSgleqents U'en existe. un dont la teneur est ^comnie suit •
■ \ article 9 - ^ - . '

' Que ^e tlit.requirant est.^f^re^ dans le bon fonctionneiii»nt ^t. la bonne
administration de U dit^ soci^W et a 6t6 6ln un des direoteurs d'iceUe & I'aBsem-
M^ gdn«<rale semi-annu^le des ^tionnaires et membres de Iw^itft aocidt^, r&u-
: li^remeht convoqu^ et.tenne en. la dite citd de Montr^al^ le 4 AyrU Igfcg!

Que le dit requ<5nint a. ^t^ ensuite, savoir : le 7 Avril 1^59, dld'pr^dent de
la ditq sooi^t^, par l«s direoteurs de la ditto 8oci«St<5,^lus 4 la dite assemble tenoe
;^ Iflidit jour 4 avril 1,859. \. . .J ^ , , '

, , "Qu'Ale^is Mousseai, agent'de change, cdurtier et^archaiid & commission* de
la dite cit^, estl^ secr^re et le tresorier de la di^o sooi^t^ 'depuis lo 13 AtHI
• 1859, V. ■ - . '" .^< ■ : ., -' . ■- '

'Qfce le dit .Amable Jodohi et le dit 'A.lexi8 Mousscau en leur qnalit^ de prfei-
dent ei de secr^taire-ti5dsorier, respfectivement,' sont investis par la loi : (savoir 12
Vict., ch. 67,-Bec. iS) de lousles biens meubles et immeublesJbt deniers, ainsi
'. ique deatitres, obligations pour deniors, autres instrnmentffportaht obligations ct
actes appartengnt i, la dite socidtd ainsi qu6 desf droits et r^lamations d'icelle,
« Que IcB direoteurs de la ditesoci^t^ qui 0^ m 6\ns le 4 Avril 1859, sonlau
nombre de sept, savoir: le dit rtequ^rant, JWn Bte. Alexandre O^illard, mar-
chand, J. fernery Coderroj m^ecin, Olivier' Peguise, cotamery^DtTJos. Barsalou,
encanteur, Jacques Grenier, marbhand, et Louis Gonzague Fauteux,,^marclrand|
tons de la fcit^ de Montrdal, et que leur election a \i et-alors 6t6 du^cnt faite
en vertu des et cpnformement ava. rdglements de la dite socidtd, pour le terme
et espace de six mois A compter du jour de leur dite dlection. , ^,

Que tous les stisdits ^recteurs ainsi dlus, ont ensuite accepts la dite chaige de
direoteurs et ont eqsuite en diffifrentes. occasions, agi com'me tels direoteurs et
onj ensuite ^lu comme susdit, le dit Aqu^rant, president de la dite aocidt^, con-'
formdment aux r^glements de la dite soci^td. ' . ,

Que le ou vers^le 3 Mai dernier et depuis ce jour jusqu'aujouni^i, le'»omm4
Btienne Alexis liuBois, bourgeois de la paroisse de Montreal, dan» JeSKstrict de
Montrdal, a prdtendu publiquement, avoir 416 ilu, le dit joiir' 3 Mai dernier

fc#teur^e~Wdttesocidtf,"qu'iUK!pBndu etlSiit rfipandr^ danila dite ciW^de"
i ontrdal, le bruit qu'il %Tait ainsi 4t6 du directeur de la .dite iwoidtd,.quoique '

_i ^____ _ _ _ _,_ ''• >j

'if'

.*■

^N

Wv

lf^>-

!OUR SUPERIEURE, 1859.

saf

la ohoso Boit entiirement (kaan, que le dit Etienne Alezld. Dubois. n'ajii^flM 6i6,
le dit jour, 3 Mai dernier, ni-auoun autre .jour, An direot^nr de la dite fOoiiSttf,"
dont ila d6J>juli le dit jour uaurp^ t'offioe. ' f- °-" '

Que le dit Etieuue Alexia DuEoia, ezeioe la dite charge de direotear et en ".
oanrpe lea fonotiona depuia 1% dit, 3 lIai|XB69, en pjifite'ndaQt tenir et faire tenir
nn bureau d'affitires; poiir et afif nonl de la dfte>Booi^t^, au.numdro i6 de li^ rue
Bt. Gabriel) en la dite oit^.de, Montreal,, et eh pr^tendant y tranaiger et y tran-

• aigeant.des afliurea au nom de la dite aooi^t^ et oe, aana ayoip>droit oiu titte 4 o*
faire. '."7' -, ' . I - ' " . ' * ,.

; (^ue le dit Etienne Xleida1)uboia, ae pr^tenda^t un dea directeura dti la d)fe ' '
»ocMt£y a pria poaaeaaion d^uqe partie dea biena-keublea de la dite aooi^t^ It des
livrea, documents et papi^ra diB la dite aooi^t^ et lea dtftient dana le auadit bureau
qn'il tient et fait tenir an nnm^rbJQ de la rue S|, Gabriel, en la dite^oit^ de
MontrM. ■■' * Y' -^.■■''. 'v';- ■■■'■■■■ '.■/■•-.,■.,:.■■■■,.'" ^^,,

.Que le dit reqn^rant, ni lea direeteuira de.la dite aoci^t^ ni aucun dea ofioiers
d'ioelle, ne peuvent avoir aoote 8i|Z ataadits regiiftrea pour en obtenir dM copies ^
'authentiquea. ' .{/ ' ' " . "' « • '' "

Que le dit requdrant ^tant int^reep^ dana la dite charge comme anadi^t^ ae^eoii- . .f,
^dii^e l^et injuri^ par cette uaurpationet detention de la part du dit Etienii#'
Atexis Dubois et ae croit bien fond^ ijcpourvoir en justice comme il le'Mt pat

' la prdsente rtibugte liheUf^.. . » r ^ *'^ ; ,

A eea causes, le dit requ^raot appuy^ des affida^ts r^uia parlaloi,etannez#l|
jk roriginal dea pr^senUia, a^pplie'Tos-honneijrs de faire maaet un^^rif on Bref. ,
ordonnant an dit Etienne Al<ausJ>ttbMrt^bempan!tve ^Vant la dite ^ur ^np^< r
rieure 4 Hontr^, en laaalle'd'arudience, aufPaLus^e Juaficej^iobr r^ndreX .
la pr&Ksn^ r^uSte, pt votre rHiKU^rant conclat", &'ce.que T^shonneurs faisant ^it -
sur la pr^sente requdte, la d^laifent bi^n fond^ et 4 tie que par liei^jugeinent A' V^
interrenir, il soii d^lard qij^^^le dit Etienne Alexis Dwdis^a ud«rp^ k chai^^t!
oftce de direeteur de la dite Socidt^ ^e Construction Canadienfte de Montr^^ '
le et depuis le 3 .Ma» dernier; i ce qu'il jwit ordqnn^ au dit Etienne Alexis " '
Dubois d'abandonner W^^laiaaer imm^atement la dite cbar^ de direetegr de
laditeSooitfWde.Con8tnicti(WCknadiennedeMbi)tr^ali^'%'ce que le dit Etien- "
ne Alexis Dubois aoit exclua et 4vind4 de lar dite;(;haige ^t qu'il lui aoit d^lenda>

^d'en «ercer lea'fonctioM^A ce que le dit Etienfie Alexip Dubois, aoit -en' N

' outre, •condamh^ h payer ik votre reqn^rant lea friis "de la>pr^aente requite et de.
toualesprdc^d^qu'elle.auraoccasionn^S^^tde plua,' 4 payer comme amende et .<
p^nalit^, pour I'usurpatidn dont il s'est rendu coupable:<Somme susdit. la romme V v
de cent livrea ou qual^re centsLdollars, oours du Canada <ru fefle autie «omme i .

laquelle vos honneurs jugecont oonvenable de'le condampei^ siifAnt laloi fai|e el'
potarvue 4 cette efFet, pour etrp la dite aonvne pay4e & ^ui A droit et fiivftnt
que pourvd pay la kn." . ' •' v /

A cette requ6te libell^, le d^fbndear phdda Tekoeption suivante :
"Le dit d^endeur sans admettre aucun desid%uAfi'du demandeur,'in8is tm

"contraire les niant tousj^ialMn^t. 4 rexoeption de cent qui seront admis aujt
pi^aerij^pouf exeepfion p^remptmn 4 oetto action^dit : ■ * ~. ^

Qu'il est fkux qu'4J'^poque de I'inatitntion de oette action,. Is dito flooi4t< ait
ftita£hires4rendroitin<fiqu^enlarequ^dnditieqii&[ant.7 ' V «,

4.,:

-^

,'*^

i

1' f ^ ■

if* ,';

; 3
, t

I

v/

,^ .

928

COUR^UPERlteUllE, 1660.

Dubois.

Ill

. l< '^T

m

.■■!i■J■^

If^

ii" ",

Quo par Icjrloisen vertu dcsquellos WMi Hoiidtd a rc9u ct continu<5 & aToir

UBo oxistonco It^lo, Ioh difRrorttfl mcnibi^ de la djto socidtd, dtjjicnt ct sont auto-

riiwJs t\ s'ttSHcinblor do temps- A autre ct do'fuiro Wablir ct conutiluor toutes lea

rt^gWs ct r<^lemontH convcnablos iV sn rc^^-ie, quo Ua irinjeuro partio dcs nicmbro

do la dite Boci«$t<5 aiffsi aBseinblt'o ju-,'eyiiit iV' propc a d'tHablir, cotume aussi d'amen-

- dor ct modiaor do tcinps A autre, les ditfl ri^glcnio ntirf Buivaut quo roccaHion I'cxi-

gerait ou de les annulcr ot abro<j;cr et d'on fair© d 3 nouveaux souh Ics restriction*

contcnuoH dans In loi (12 Vict., ch. 67) et quo la dfte socidtd est <$galoment

autoris<5o par laSUi, i^ choisir ojNioninier dc tempi tV autre, un nombre quelcon-

quo do se^ mombros, loqucl doit fltre di5tcrmin«5, linal quo lour qualification, par

des rdglcments do la dito 8oci<!t<5, aux fins do-foimer un bureau do diredteurs,

..vqui doivont dliro un president et un vico-prdsidont avec pouvoir do ddldguer aux

dits dircoteurs tons ou ohaOun les pouvoirs qui leir sont conftSrds par la loi (12

Viot., ch. 67) pour Otre exdcutds, fosqucls dirocto irs ainsi dlus <»t nommds doivent

continuer & agir on cotte qualitd pendant tout h torops fixd par les rdglemcnts

do la dite socidtd, Ws pouvoirs dcs dits directeiirs,dtant pr^abloment ddfinis

dans ly rdglemcnts. > < * - • *

Que par la loi, il est spdcialement pourvu quenrien de oontenu en iceU'e n^aura

. AeflFet-d'empCclicr aucune modification ou amcndement des dits rdglemento ^ur

'a direction de la dite socidtd, en la mani^re qujiserait de temps d. autre pres-

Orito paries rdgloments 4o. la dite socidtd ct quo/ttfus les rdgloments f|dt8 et dtar

blis de temps H autre pour la direction de la diw sbpldt^, et 6nr<$gistrd8 suivant

'• que present par la loi dans \in livre tenu i. cjbtto fin, seraient obHgatoires pour

1.08 membres et les officiersde la dite socidtd et ses contributeurs et lours rftprd-

seatants, Icsquola sont tons censes' en avoir en plcine connaisM^noe ndflil conSi-

^ mation et renregistrement 8^Bdit.

"' Que par les lois afiectant I'cxistence ct la rtgio do la dite socidtd, il est pourvo

0 que la dite socidtd sera et est autorisde 4 pasier et faire telle Inodifioation, amen

V dement, riescision ou abrogation des r«*glemei)lts de la dite socidtd A toute assom

Wde gdndrale des actionnaires do la dite societd, sans limitation quant au nombre

'/ des^ actionnaires prdsents k telle assemblde/ pourvu que plus de la moiti4 du

' Dontbre des membres de la dite socidtd sigAo une requisition conw||iiu|L telle

assejlnblife gdndrale des actionnaires et recoiiimandant une modificati((n, rcscision

ou abrogation des rdglementa de la dite socidtd, specifiant les termes d'ioelles, et

^..que cha4ue membre soit notifid du ohangement par la voio do laposte dans un

', ddlaide 15 jours. f . -^ _i

Que le4 Avril dernier il existait un rdglement de la dite socidtd con9ue dans

. les termes suivants, savoir :

' ** Art. 14. — Une assemblde gdndrale, s^mi-anpuelle des membres se tiendra au

Dureaa de |{i socidtd ou h tout autre place que le bureau ddsign'era, le premier

lundi' du mois d' Avril ct du mois d'Octobro qhaque annde, commen^ant en

; Octobre prophain, (et dansle oas ou ce sferait des jours de flSte, le jour suivant)

dans le but d'dlire des directeurs pour lie semestre suivant^ et pour tout autre

objet d'intdrdt gdndral, ayant rapport a la rdgie de la socidtd et i, chacune des

dite3 assembldes semi-annuelles il senusoumis un rapport olair et complet de

r<tat des affairas de'iasooid^^"

ri^ports pdriodiques sera attests par deiix auditeurs nommda par lea directeurs."

<»

, COUR 8UPER1EURE, 1889.

92r^ .

Qu'on .Ybrta du dit rdgloment, uno aRBombl<$o g($ndralo 8oini-anni«Bllo dca mem-
bi^DS do ta dito BOoi($t<S a ou H^i^ lo 4 Avril dornior, ot quo lea porsonncH nomnKkiS
en la dito re^uOto, Bavotr: — Atuablo Jodoin, Joan Btc, A. Couillard, Joseph
Emory Coderro, Olivier Doguim), JoHoph Buraalou, Jacques Grcnior ct Louis
Qonzogue Fauteuz out ($U5 (Slus dircoteurti do la dite Hoci(>t<5,
'~^ Qtto.les mombres do la dito sooidtiS, jugoant \ propos do modifier, amender
rosoindor et abroger le rtfgloinont suooiKS, rdglant j'dpoquo do I'lSlcctioii dca diroo-
teurs do U dito Booi<$td ot la durdo d6 lours fbnctions, auraicnt adopt($ Ics voieB
indiqu(5es par la loi pour opdrer telle Miiodifieation, aincndoment, rcscision et
abrogation «t quo plus do la moitid du nombre dos membros, auraient d«^A avant
le 16 avriL dernier, signd uno rdquisition oonvoquan't uno asscuibldo g<Sn(SraIo del
aotionnaires de la dito 80oi^t<$ et rcooAioiandant uno modification, roscision et
abrogation du rdglemont susoitd, sp^Scyfiant Iqs tetmes d'icellea, le tout dans les
termes suivants, BOToir: ^ * , | ' ^ '^

" Attendu qu'il est expedient d'amendel* le liime article dcs r^leinonts de
oette sooi^td, de mani<^re ti co que le dit article soit con^u comme suit, savoir : —
" Une assemblite gdntfri^o annuelle dos membr^ so tiendra an bureau dela
sooidtd on & tout autre ipla'ce que le bureau ddsignera, le premier mardi du mois
de Mai ohaquo anh<5o, commen^ant le premier mardi du mois courant (1859)
et dans le oas oii. oo serait jyi jour de fQte, le jour suivaUt,"' dans k but d'<!liro des
direoteura pour I'annde sulfite, et pour tout autre objetd'intdrdt ^n<Sral, Ajant
rapport ^ la Hfgie de la socidtd, et & c^acuue.des di tea -assembles tmntiellcB^ll
eora sounds un ra^rt cloiret complet del'dtat des afiaires de la 80ci^t<S, durant
rann<Se prdoddente, et chaoun de COS rapports pdriodiques *8era attests par dleus
Jauditeurs nomm<<s par les dircctjBur^" -•'* r. -. '

" Les soussignds formiint plus de la moitid du nombrp des memoes de la
' dito StwiiStd de Construction CanadicnW de Montreal, convoqucnt, par Icspr^
eentes, une assemble gdndrale des aotionnaires de la dite eoci^td, pour ^tre tenue
dans lea sallqg do I'lnatitut Canadien, le troiaidme jour de Mai proqhain, h, 7^
heurea du soir, pour prendre en considdration la modification susdite qvc les
Boussignds recommandcnt ainsi qud la rcscision et abrogation du dit 14(^me tt|rtiole
des rdglements de la dite aooidtd, tel qu'eiua^nt et pour 14 et alors. adopter itotts
procddds^ndcbsaaircs pour iuettro k exdoution rurtiole des rdgkments'ainsi ampiti
dda, Montrdal, 16 Avril 1859," dnai, que le tout appertA' la di^to convocatiMi-^'
produite aveo lea prdaentea pour en faire partie. ,„ • .\^ ' ' ''

Quo la convocation ainai formulde et aignde, auraH dtd adreaad^^^a toua le$
mombres de la dite aooidtd et que chaque membit) aurait dtd tfotifid du qhange-
ment suggdrd ef demandl'par fa majoritd 'des membres de la dite sooidtd par la
voie de la poste, dans un ddlai de 15 jours, avant le premier^ardi du mois de
Mai oourant, savoir:— -un ddlai de^lSfjifftirs aVant le troia MAMurant, jour 6x6
dana la dite convocation pour la dite asse&blde gdndraio. M / ' '

Que le trois Mai oouruit i'aasemUde gdndrale des oct^onnaires de la dite sooidtd
^nvoqude par la rdquisitiqn sus-citde a rdgu'U^rement eu lieu^ auz jour, heureet
lieu indiquds en icelle, qu'il a dte E et alors constatd que la dito' aasemblde avait
^tg-agguK^naent convoqnde par plus de la moitid dea mfimhreB At, In djte aooidfa^i

'f'T-

H»

A.

et qn'M^'meemblde, Famendement recommandd comme snadit a 6t6 adopts

-'^r-

#

MCI

Jodoln

n.
Ovboto.

;l|iv_.

.. S

r

^,

-.■X

\

%

COUR SUPERimiRE, 1850.

pjr !«, monibro. prt«,„t. ^ la dite «»ombI<fo, «i„.i q„e le t5ut appert .«, pw-
0W<. do la d.to ««n,bldc produita avco Io» prt«nt«i pour en WoV^^^^^ ^ '
yuo I adoption du dit amondemont ayant an<$anti lo «5glcn.cnt en vcrtu duqnel
I«8 pomonnoa 6\nen oommo dirccteum, lo 4 Avril ^ornier. pouvnient ofiir on I.
u»te q^ahW do diwctoum, lea pouvoiradoa ditca porsonnes oommo tola dircotoun
J« aont tcrmthda aveo I'oxistonco du dit rtSglemont, aavoir, par I'adbption de
amondoment Bu«<-montionn<S «t qobTa dito «oci.JU5 <5tait tonuo do proo<$der & V6.
lection do nouve«ut direoteurs, afin do mettre le dit «Jglement tol qu'ainend^ A
eziJQutiOn. • ^

Que de fuit, lea membns de la dite sooi<$t<S lunomblds oomme suadit, lo 3 Mai
oourant, auraient 1& ot alora procddd & I'dloction d'un bureau do direotoum pour
•ervir oommo tela dirooteum durant I'dpoquo flxdo par lo rdglomont tel qu'«m«ft,d<J
et que lea peraonnea auivantea, auraient 14 et alon M duJtent <51ub, ohoiais et
nommda oommo tch directoura, aavoir :-Etienne Alexia Dulboia le ddfondour en
cetto eauae, Joeeph Emory Codorre, douior, m,5decirt, Olivier Dc«uiito, Charles
Laoadle Davjd Beauohamp, John Feron ot Jo6l Leduo, ooajmeryant ^t tou«»ept
de la cit<J do Montreal ainai qu'apport aux dita proo<dAi. . *^

Que le requ^rant on cette oauao a oonoouru daqa lea proo^<^ do la dite
aaaembl^, d^lib<5rd et vot^ en iocUe.

' Que le 6 Mw oourant, une aaaembl^ du bureau dea directeura <$1ub A I'aaaem-
bliSe g^ndrale du 3 Mai courant, aurait eu lieu et que lea directeura auivauts
auraient dtd pr&ent & icello, aavoir :~David Beauohamp, Olivier Deguiso. Joel
Leduo, Joaeph Emery Coderre, John Feron et le diSfendeur eu cette cauao. et
quAtelleaaaembl^leditd^fendeur aurait 6t4 r^lifiremont et unanimoment
nommd prdeident de la dito aoci^t^ pour l'ann<te courante, ainai qu'appert &
1 extrait produit avec lea pr^^ntea, du livro dea procdd^s du bureau dea directeura.
Quo vli ce que dpaaua, le dit d^fendeur eat bien fondd d. exercer lea charges
de directenr et pr&idenl do la^it* aoci^t^J, et quo la prA«nte requfite ?t aS
cat mal fond^ et doit 8tr« ^^bdut^. V \

Pourqvoi le^dit d^fen<Jeur oenclut au dtfboutd de lap«feenterequfite, Ltionoti
nstance, aveo d^pena.*^ V* / .

I^e demandeur r^pondii Bp&ialement & cette ddfenae oommo auit -J. v
. « Quo par la eeptidme cli^uao do I'aote du parlement de oette^rlj^ince. paaad

^ T ""* """^ '*'*^' ^« ^* *^'«^*^' »'»*'t«'^ = " A^ pour inoT
rager 1 ^tabhssement dfe gpci^tA de-Gonatruotion dana le Baa-Can^da " II eat
atata^iW'Qu^auoun t^W^ij onrf^tri pomme auadit, ne aera \5liang^ re^
cind^ouabrog^,Amoina^eyneBoit 4une'aAembl<5egdn^^^^^ membrea
d«.i-lH80Ci^W,oonvoqu4pp\^ aedr^taire ou prAudent de telle aoci^t^J, A la
|»e i^uiiition A cet effet\^d'au moins quinze membrea de teUe aocidtd-
•guiaiti^n indiquSra lea Objeta pour lesquela la r^&nion eat convoqufc*
fm^ kn pr&i(ient^et directeura, et aur ce, chaque membre seja notifii
toent par la voie de la poate,- dana un d^lai de quinze joura, et telle
asaembl^e devni 6tre oompo«Se d'au moind un tie^'dea aoUonnaifes, dont Tea
trois quarta d^i^ont concourir dans tellea modificationa ou adoptiona."

Quep^n jcte du parlement de cette province, pt^sa^ dana la dix-huitidme
ann<Se du^^sf^ de Sa Majesty, poutamender I'aote ci-desans cittf, U eat atatutf

■ '^^v

"«s

^■f ' •

\

COUR SUPERIEURE, I8iJ9.

sst

■•*<■

oomi^ie Buit:— " l". La partie de k Mptidme motion da dit aote qui presorit
qu'auoun rdgloment ne aora chong<5, reaoindd ou abrog<$ 4 moina que oo ne aoit A
uno aMonibliSo K<$n^rale dea membrM d'une telle nociiiJUS, laquello aaaemhlik) don» -
^ fltre oompoMSe d'au moina un tienr del aetionnairea, aora et elle eat par lea pr^
aenUw abrogd. 2°. Poorvu que plua do. la moitid du nombro doa incnibrcH d'une
8ooi6t<$ do Conatruotion aigne uno rdquiaition oonvoquaut tine aaaeniblf^ g<Sii<Srale
dea aetionnairea, et reoommandant nne modification^ naoiaion ou abrogation dea
rdglcinont« do la^nlite aooi<Std, npAjifiant lea t^rmca d'icelloa, la Site asaombl^fe,
aauH limitation quant au nombro dea aetionnairea pr<58cnt«, sera ct cat par le
pr^nt aote, autoria^ k paaaer et faire telle modification, amendementa, reaoiaioo
ou abrogation." • ' > '

Quo par lea ditea olattaerdea aotea cideaana oit^, auoune aaaemblfe nb pent
6tre convoqu^ dana le but d'abrogor up rdglemont do tout* telleBoeidt<5, Amoina.
qne la r^uiaition oonvoquant telle asaombl^, no soit adreasda an pntwdiSnt et
diieotoura de la ^ite aocidt<{ et que la dite aasembltSe ne aoit convoqudo par lo'
B0or<Staire ou pr&ident do telle aoci<5t<5 ; et que l*acte*ci-dc88us en defnier livuoit<5,
n'kmende I'acte oi-deaaua en premier liou cit<5, que quant au nombre dcasigpatair^
de la dite r^uiaition et doa membrea qui'devront 6tro pf <<Bent8 i^ la dite aaaemblA).

Que le 4 AvriI'dernier et lo 3 Mai oourant, il exiatait dea r^lements dOment
. adoptda et enrj^iatrda pour r^ir la Sooi<lt<J de CoHatruotion Canadiennf" do '
Idontr^, panni leaquelis ae trouvent lea auivanta ■ ' . .

" Article 9.— Lea afiairea de la toeiit6 Seront aoua le contrSle et la d^iaic^
d'ntt bureau do aopt directeura dont.quatro fomjewftt pi^quorum et qui ohoiairom
entro eux un priSaidont et un vioc-prdsident." \

'• Artk 12.— Lea directeura demeureront en charge juaqu'il^ce que lenra ano-
ceasAura aient <St<5 dlua, & moina qu'ila ne ceaaent de I'fitr* par lour rdaignation ou
auoune dea cauaea auivantea, aavoir: d«Soda, abaence aux aasembltSea durant troia
mow conadcutifa, inaolvabilitd, banqueroute et arreatation pou/torime ou ddlit.

" Art.l4.— JJ^e aaaembldo gdndralo^ semi:annueUe dea riembrea, ae tiondra
an bureau de-la aocidtd ou A tout autre place que le bureau d&ignera, le premier
lundi du moi8d'Avriletdumoifld'Octobreohaqueann<fe,commcn9anten Octobro,
prochain (1867) (et dana lo caa oii ce aerait doa joura de fete, lea jpura auivantsl
dana lo but d'dlire dea directenlHi pour le aemeatre iuivant."
- Quo o'eat en vertu dea W^lementa auadita que le demandeur et B«|ymtrea per-
soniiea mentionndea dana la d<Sclaration en cette cauae, ont 4t6 l<5^1ement dlu9
directeura de la dito tocidt«J, lo premier lundi d'Avril dernier, et que lo demandeur (
%6i£ enauito Idgalement dlu pidaident de la dite aocidtd, ainai qu'aUdgnd dana la
dite declaration et addiia paryrexception du ddfendeur. '

Que touB lea procddfe all^da par le ddfendeuu, ooncemant nne oertainr
aaaemblde de la dit« eomA que le ddfendeur prdtend avoir ea lieu le troia Mai
conraftt,'aont nula, illdgadx et conte^irea aux atatuts ci-desaua citda et an* r^e-
menta de la dite aocidtd, elt^ pSuvent avoir conKrd au ddfendeur auonn droit *
la charge qu'il prdiend ^pc^seh ^ . *

Que la dit^ prdtendue'ateiemibldfr n'a ihu 6i6 ^onvoqnde d'une ma^lve ll^e. ^

Que la rd^uiaition oonvoquant telle aaaemblde n'a pas 4t6Mga6e pu plus de
la faoitid du notabre dea membrea de la dite aooidtd, ni mflme par la moiti^ '
A'iMiix, . • ^ —

, - ■ ( ■ ^ ' ' ■ . ■■ ..'jf% ■ " . ■ ^

DnboU

:^:

.(\:

I

-7^

882

COUR 8UPERIEURE, 1800.

J«Ma
Dubola.

Quo toua loH noniH npix^H nu bnn do la diUs r(<qu!iiition n'y ont par^cTw mil
pnr li'j. pcrHonncM cjuo cvn iionm indiquoiit, ct no nont \mB lourn mKimtui^i.

Qu'mi Ki-and notuliru don «i«nnturc« qui ho trouvont au biw do- In Uito roqui-
wtion out m obtonu« por fraudo, p,ir nurprrw, ot nur do tuum>H roprdmsutaliunB
la periwnno.qul domanduit «t Hollioitnit oo» niKiiature* dinant qu'il no n'agiHwiU
quo do fairo un ohariKoniont »i^ inoyuii duqii«l loMdiroctouro Hcraiunt A I'avonir <t|lll
quu pour un an au lieu do mil mow, uiai's pronant biun min do f» poa diro qu'U
•'i^i«»alt do fairo iinin<$diatoik>nt do BOuVolIo* dlootiitns,
'Qu'uii f,'raini noiubhj dcB ^'nonnQH don>^ Teh noma ho tiwivont nu baa do 1ft
ito r«%ni8ition n'dtaient pjifl, loniquo IcniylitioMm ont»5U5 ainsi appofl<«Hot no Hunt
, 8 onooto mombrcH ni actionnairos do Jji dif6 mc'i6U,
Quo la dito r«5qui«ition no.porto auouno date ot que k dito pnJtonduo convo-
cation n'o paa <5t«S avortio par la void des jouriiaji^i ni transuiiao 4 tous Ioh action.
naircH do la dito Bool<5t<$. / - ' y

Quo la dito roquisition n'a paa-gUfadroaa^fe. au pr<$«idenfc et directouru do b
dito socidtd ot quo la dito pr<Stonduo oMomttdo n'o poa 6t6 oonvoqudo on U
manii^ro prcscrito par'la loi ct par lea l-dgfenionta do la dito socidtd. ^^

Quo lo but do.la dito mwcnibldo n'dtait poa sufiaamiuoi^ indiqud dans lo dite
prdtonduo convocation ot laiasait doa ,doutc8, savpir: si I'on dovait amcndcr ou '
nbrogor certain rdgleniont alors on force.

Quo la dito prdtondue convocation no moniionnait nuliement qu'on dliralt do
nouveaux mcmbrca H la dito OMcmbldo du 3 Mai dernier, nl quo Ton ddnicttrait
ou destituorait los directeurs alors en charge et qui avaient <5td lo 4 Avril prccd-
dont, <5lu8 pour six niois.

Quo do plusy^n supposant, CO qui est formellcmcht nid, quo la dito aBsembUte
auraitdtd oonW^u«<o rdguliirenient ct Idgalemertt, les porsonnos composant la
dito assembldo n*avaient aucun droit do ddmcttro ot dcstitucr les directeurs qui
ayaiont 6t«5 le 4 Avril prdcddont, l<Jgalemcnt dlus pour six niois, ni do les rem-
placcr par d^ nouveaux directeurs.

Quo lo prdtendu nouveau rdgleiuent quo lo ddfondour all^guo avoir 6t6 adoptd
a la dito prdtcnduoHissombldo du 3 Mai coufant, no pouvait dans tons les oas
avoir d'effet quo pour le futur, niais no pout avoir d'effets rdtrospectifs ni
privcr les directeurs dlus Ic 4 Avril dernier, du. droit qui }eur <Stait acquis par.
loi ct les r«^glemcnt8 do la dito soci<5t<5, do demourof on charge pendant un so-
mcstro.

Quo toufles proci-dfe qui ont pu.Ctro adoptijs par la dito assembldo du 3 Mai
dernier n'oAt pu aflFectcr la position du demandeur ni des autres directeurs do la
dito soci(5t<5, et n'ont pu avoir I'cffSt de les mcttro hors do charge ni do faire
cesser leurs fonctions. . ,, ...

Quo les fToc6d6a dont lo ddfendeur produit do prdtctidus extraits comme
ayant 6t6 adoptids lo 3 Mai.dernier sent nuls et illt^gaux sous tons les rapports.

Que la dito prdtendue assembldo n'a pas 6t6 convoqudo et organisde Idgalcnicnt
ni rdgulidrement, qu'ejle n'a pas 6t6 prdsiddc par le prdsident do la dite socidtd
et que lc8 prdte'ndus procddds n'ont jamais dtd signds par lo prdflident ni par le
aecrdtaire do la dito socftHd. A

Quo le*dit jour, 3 Mai cpurint, iiii grand nombro des actionnaires ct membres

m.

w

■ -^4

COUR 8UPEIIIEUUE, 18M.

4oiti (lite KHA6t6 m Mnt ronduH <Iiinii I(w«aIlcH do nnntitut-Cahadfen, en U eitd
do?l<»iitr«:!al, «t li\ ot alorn ont »f^um aux pwriMmiuii mwvmbldcR jmur prcwddcr
au npiii dti l» dito iH)ciot<« «t iipi<cialciii«iit nux iKirHoniiflH <|ui prt^tfiiidaiont ogir
#Oii^if«! prdHidentf ct Kocriituiro do Ift dito ««noiiibl<<ii ot do la dito •c>oitU»<, uii protflt
_^r lo((iicl il» iijjniil^nmt nuohjujSH uiiom dt-ii ilK<}<iilit(<H do» ditM prc-tcndiiH pn)c<S-
d«?H, I6(|uul protOt MiKiiji on tripliintii pur 1»h di(N action nuirc'H f»t produit uvco
Io» pri^Honton, ut a <5t«3 lu \ huuto voix uux porwoiJiion prdnontoB & la dito oMBcmbl(<o
" • du It Mill oDurant,

Qu'il iHt fuux <iuo lo domandeur ait portlclp<S au* proo<5ddii do ia dile oNient-
bl(}e du 3 Mai ouurnnt. t^

Qu'il OMt (%aiomon't faux qu'il ait 6t6 li, ot alora oouHtatd cjuo la dito nmcmbl^o
ovait m rt^KuliiNrenioiit c(»nvw|U(<o pur pluH do la nioiti«5 deu iiionbreit do la dito
Hooit'ttJ, niuiti fju'ttu contniiiro, un dun autiounaircH ot monibreii de la dito sooidtd
lyin* 'e<m«*"'i><5oialoMiont courqui prdtouduiont ainii proc^dor, do numtrer la
lirto dcfl actioiM^aircn ufin do oonHtutor quel on dtait lo nombro, on rofusa do ce
foiro ct Ton ^rit indistinctomcnt Iob votes do toutcs leu peraonncH prdeonjtcs rans
qu'il fut poBHiblo do oontttator »i lua pcraonnos qui votaicnt dtaiont ou non nicm-
bro do lu dito sooi^ttf. A '

Quo vfl tout co'quo doMun, 11 est Evident quo lo d^fondour n'o poa m ot n'a
paa pu Ctro 6\u dijootour de la dito socidtd & la dito prdtonduo aiwomblde du 3
Mai courant, que la dito prdtcnduo <$lcotion par lui invo«iu<$o est nullo et ill«<golo
ot no pout lui oonfiJrer lo droit d'oxoroor la dito chorgo do direotour, ni cello de
prdHidont do la dito aooidtd, lesquolloa charges il nu8urp<$ et d(5tiont ill<5gnlenient.»

La contestation ainsi li«5o, los parties furorit ontondues au m^rito aprt^a uno
tris longuo enquOto. ,

X>o«<rc pour la ddfonso, pr^ndit ik rorgument: -

„1°. Quo toutos los questions ao(kv&38 dana cotto oauae/aont doinin<5os par le
prinoipe quo los corporations sont rdpublijainos ot diSmooratiques et qu'A moins
do rcHtriotiona positives, la majority doit tout gouvemer, (1) que si des questions
nouvollofl Burgissent, les tribunftux doivent s'abstenir d'intorvenir (2) et que o'est
en CO sens quo tend la Wgislation modenpe, ainsi que 1« prouvent nos demiera
statuts, touohant les institutions nkinicipalcs. '

2°. Que la forme do la convocation, mOmo lorsqu'elle d^vie da la loi, ce qui
n'cst pas lo cos en cotto instance, peut Ctro rdgularis<5e par la prince do ceux
qui ont droit do vote, (3) que si I'avis de convocation (Smane de personnes qui
n'ont paa le droit de le donner, la prdsonco do ceux^ui s'en plaignent est un ac-
quiescement, (4) ct que le pouvoir do faire de» r^lementa r^sidant ohez ks
mombres^ pouvoirde oonvoquor I'asaembl^ pour faire les r^lements est oo-
oxistant ct accessoirc.' (5)

3°. Quo la chart© (12 Vict., eh. 57) autorisant les membroa ii nominer dea
officiers et h les remplacer do temp$ d autre, ce serait violcr cetto oharte quo de

ItiMn
DttboU.

y ■ i

V.

<•!) Angell and Ames, on CorporatlonB, Ntri^SS^

(2) Grant, on Corporationa, p. 211.

(3) Wilcock, on Corporationa, No. 69. --j,^

(4) Angell and Amea, No. 491. , ' j ■ %^

(8) Id. No. am

4 •—

♦

8a4

COUR 8UPERIEURE, 1809.

//.

/. <■»

kl-^

oe qui ne m |Mut, (1) quo in pouvuir d« nfftUr un rtetoiooat wt oo-«ii«taat
avoo oelui li'en fkira. (2) , ' /

4 4». Qu« l« p.mvoir <lo <l<(mflttA un ofloier Mt'lnhdnmU toute fioriK»r«tion,
(8) «t qu'il luffit (lea tflira ao pour le remplwcr, pow o«'U aoU ddmk iW
/aeto. (4) ^ ' ^ .^ '^

6°. Quo f rappd d'un r<^l«in«nt « le i^«ni« itifct qn« le rappol d'nn nUtut,
par Ifl purlcmenlKS) *<t (,uo Ion ofBobn. ijk>nt U dur*V) d'offioo oat flx<!e par on
rtKl««"«nt, iNBTtlont lour olRoo p„ |c ruppo! do oo r<$Klenient. («)

6°. Qw) quant 4 la prdMidonoo do riwiionibl<5«, oelui (|ui I'araU priSaidtf I'arKil
fkit anna oontoatation, quo ni U ooutumo ni l» loi, ni aqoun r<5gleincnt n'exigoait
quo l^pnSaident do la corporation ftit an fuuUniil.dnna un« aiu«onibl<$e g^niiralo ct
•itrnofdliiairo, que la prdaohoe du pr<J«ident 4 luHOuU)!^ ^ttil un aoquigaoMuent
4 la fornifl dea prootfdda, ainon au foods. (7)

7". Qua quant 4 la prdUmtion quo lo wJglemont tel qu'amend^ dovait ttre
•lir<5giHtrd avant quo I'dlcotion out Iwu, on vertu do oo rrfglemont.— on premier
lieo, cola n'ost paa plaidd ot on sooond lieo le n)|i;lomentamonddajant(5t<$oztraii
du livfe t«nu 4 cet cffct, il doval>, 4 moina de preuvo eontraire, «tro prdaum^
enrdf,'iiitr<5 »««<««/«•; du moment qu'il dtalt paiwd,— oomnie Iob jugemcnta dea
court* Hont cenndH oijrdglBtrds au moniont oii ils aopt prononcds.

8«. Que la doctrine aoutonuo par WilooCk aur la ndcoBHitd de propooer lea can- '
didatfl un 4 un, n'eat paa applicable 4 I'dlection foite au aorutin, vote by ballot^
aurtout loraque I'liSlootion a liou nana oonteatation, comme dana le oaa aotuel, ft
qu'ello cat faite de bonne foi. (8) 'j

9°. Quo lo mode do coavooation obaorvd en ootto drconatanoe dtait colui qa'lf
fait auivi 'la Booidtd, dana \in0 oirconHtanocantdrieure. >' |

10°. Que la con vocation- "do rnHHcnibldo/dont on attaquait loa proo^da indi-
quaii olaireniicnt lea objcta pour Icwjuob cctto namsmbldc avoir lieu. Quo lea deux
aeuls objota pour kflquela elle ^tait convoqude dtaiept: 1". amender le 14«me
article dea riflemen ta; 2°. mettro a execution le r^lement tel qu'amendd, en
faiaaiit dea dieotions, ct (juo ccs deux objeta so trouvont olairenicnt indiqudii dana
la convocation (voir Ic texto do la convosatiipn dana I'oxooption du Ddfondbur.)

Smith, J,, after having stated the facta of the caac and the pleadings, said
that the principal issue was sot forth in the ploadinga, but that a variety of inci-
dental questions caine up at the hcaring^on tho merits. He would not however
go into ail the details as it jias unnecessary, inasmuch as those questions upon
which tho jud^ent of the t:!ourt is based, would be sufficient to dispoae of the
oaae.

f

(1) Angell and Amea Koi.' 327, 343. Wi^cock, Nos. 1 1, 12, 227. Qraoi, pp. 80, 81/

(2) Angell and Ames No. 329. Wilcock. 237. ' z

(3) Aogell and Ames p. ioo. " ' ,^ r > w

(4) Wilcock, Noa 75, C40 062, 703 L^_^ . _ 1_ /^ ,:. ... ... ^ j/ .:^:V: ;

(6) Dwarria, on Statutes, b. C76. ^ , » / '~^.-' r^

(6) Wilcock, No. 764. \ >

(7) Grant, p. 245 et auiran^t

(8) Angell and Amea. Ma^Jafl^

V./1

, if' . «j

I

OOUR SUPRRIKIIKK, 185t*

rV* ffUntioti of (h« Pettttonar, llttt Im fn^ been tUmUi fhr tli« •!»<»
of •!« ntonttw, other DirMlon could not mmo in Wiiin> the end of hi« tvrp (tf
ofljofl WM unfovaded, If thit By law had been n^Urly and ^pUly alt<ir«4.* *

Tboro In no proliibilion in th« Charter or in th« lly lawa to alt«r avoh a Bj-
Uw ipd th«reft.rM to abridge tb« terlH of Ollo«, but on tho Wiolrary, th« Mom.
bcra of tho AawKsiatUm am nnipoworod to iDAlMudl B> lawa whidithoy may d««ni
oonduvlvo to th« w«<lfttre of the .^UmwUtioti. Th« Dir^wtura have no freehold in
their Office and tho Corpojwtdw Ufe • right to pnm a Bylaw abridging their
ciiating t«nn of Oflloe.

The point now U) be conitidered ia whether tho By.|aw invoked by the Defcn.
dant waa rogwlarly pawMMl and whether it is In force. By th« aeventh Motion of'
the Provincial Act of 1849 it ia enaeted : " Qu-kuoun rdgl^ment «nr<Hriatrd

nioiiiM «)ae oe ne auit ik uno

^u^ p«r le aeer^taire on

eflet d'au inoinaquiluM

objeta pour loM|Ucla

et direeteura, ot aur ee,

To'io de la poate, dana ton ddlal

d'au nioins un tiera dea

dana tdlc9 moJiflmioaa

■ ,. • . ■■':'{ - ■

law haa been changed by the

aoninie auadit, no aera oluingtf, reHoifcd<S ou
MicRibldti g($n4rale dea niombna de telle m
pr^ident do telle n(wi6t6 A In stiito d'une re
nembroa de Uille aoeiAl^, lafjuello r^uisitic
|U rdunion Hit oonvoquite, ot aera adreaa^S^
ohoquo meinbre sera notifid dtt ohangoment;
de (|uinie joura ; ct telle aaaeniblde dovra fitre .._.
iwtionnairea dont lea troia ^aarta dttvygnt oqhoo
on abrog^iiooa.** J ' /? ,

The Dofijndant aaid that tbirprovlalon of tho _..

latBCotionofthoProvinoial Act of ;85B, which ill aa followa: " Lrparthj de
.h nptUmo uetion du dit oote, qui preacrit qu'au<«n r<$Klenient no aera ohangd,
naoindd ou abrog^, 4 moina que oe ne aoit i^ une aamnibl<k) g<$n4rale dea mem-
brea duno Usilo «ocl<Jt<5, lm|uello aMenibl^ devra 6tro eompoiMSe d'au moins an
tier, dea actionnairca, aera ot cat par le prtSaent aote abroR^fe," and Vide acction 2.

The wliol^ Act of 186518 in the nature of a proviao to the Act of 1849 and
liOTor bad tho effect of revoking tn Mo the aeyentb olauae and the abrogation
which the Defendant pretends to have been mad* U the seventh dauae is un-

The seventh section instill in ftiU force and efhti, and the dutjtJlBMfliii.
bew of the Aasooiation is to call upon tho Prasiden^ to convene the meeting^

The rules of Law concerning Corporations^au pport this view of the case.
Corporations arc created to cany out the objects of the Associated Members, and
* Si T?* °^ ^ ^^^^ ^^ '*»* edministiatfVe powers and vesta them

• °fj 'f Diwotors. In every Corporation the | towers are It^slative, electiae
•Od adminiatrative,and if the Members of a Corporktion could control abaolntely
tiie administration of the Directors, it would have the effect to establish an im-
fmum tn impmo and to bring at onoe the dissohition of tlie Corporate Body
X*o Corporation oonld «xiat under rnoh a atate of tbings and these nilei an i«.
•Qgnii^ even by eonunoa hnr. Taking ap the
•ad tUkt it is there stated :— «« Art. 12.— Lea d
Jnaqa'i oe que lours snooesnars aient 4i6 dins, k a
pT \tkt rMgnSktion on ancnne dea eaoses aaivan
nee^toes durant troia mda ot^ns^tift, iaio:

> 04^11

^y-laws of tho AssoeiatioD wo

ears demeoreront en cKargo

tina qa'ils ne oaapent del'ftie

savoir : d^ods, absenoe anz

|it^ bviqiiaoataotarrMliitioa

a.

}

f "rf^"

r

3-19

CGUR gUPERlfeURE, 1850.

Jodoin

Vi,

Duboia.

■■..;\

pour crimo ou ddlit. Tout direoteur so trouvant dans un de ces cas, sera do fait
d<Sini8 do sa ^har^, ct lo bureau do direction le rcmplacora 4uho aBBCuibl<5o sp<5-
oialo convofiu<5o A cet eflFet par le pr<S8idont." >

Now such a By-law was not required. The President is always in charge as-
long as his successor is not appointed and has a right to preside over iuccUn"T9
'till a now President is elected, so that the meeting of the 3rd May presided over
by Mr. Tellier was illegal on that account. Wilcock, on Corporations No. G(f
p. 45. The summons must bo issued by order of ^ome one who has authority
to assemble the Corporation for that particular purpo.sQ.

To constitute an assembly tliero must be a President, and the President of i ho
•Association is by common law the head of the body, he must submit the By-laws
and have them enregistered and sutsh powers are delegated to hinfty law. WU-
coekj No. 94, p. 53. The legal Heid Officer, must bo present, or the Corpo-
rate Assembly is incomplete; No. 95,not only must the Head .Officer be present '
but he mu«t attend, in his Office and preside.

, The convocation of the Meeting of the 3ril May was illegal, not-having been
made by the President or Secretary-according t9'the provisions of the seventh'
section of the laW of 1849, therefore the By-law which was passed at that Meetin"

■ presided over by Mr. Tellier is null and the election which then tbok place of
the Defendant as a Director of the Association must be set aside. There are "^
a variety of other minor considerations which it is Unnecessary to notice but
there is one which ought to be stated. A By-law cannot be changed without a
special notice of the whole proceedings which are intended to be had at the
Meeting convened for such change. Now the notice which was given was in-
sufficient with respect to these words : ct pour 14 et alors adopter tous procudds
bdcessaires pour mettre ik execution I'article des rdglements ainsi ^^auieudes;
Another point also to which at first Fdid not attach much importance, but which
is, however well founded in law. is : th^it an electioa'of iseveral Direptors cannot
be made in toto by one simple vote upon the whole board., The election must '
te made one by one, of each Director singly. (1)

; ^ The- conclusions of <the requStc libellic are therefore granted and the judgment
is mo^tv^' aji follows : » . " , , «< ®

Considering that the said Petitioner hath fiilly proved the material allegations
of his said requite libellee ; Petition and that on^e 4th April 1859 the said
Petitioner was duly elated to fill the Office of Director of the Association
called, " Socidt<5 de Construction Canadienne de Montreal," for Ae time and
period pointed out by the By-laws of.the said Afisociation and that be wafi after-
wards duly elected to be the President of the Board of Directors duly elected
and further considering that the said Defendant hatl^faiied to establish his right
to act as a Director oi^n^dent of the said Ass^iation, and further considering
that the-Meeting caUed )iy the majority of the said Association to be held on the
3rd day,of May 1859, was illegally coiivened a^d illegally presided over and '
oontraiyto the provisions of the existing By-lawi» of the Association and that %*

■j-i.

m

^^^

^(1) Ko. 644, F* 3IB, form of Blietion, Gaadidatsi how pro|KMedi

m-' . y

■■■■■/

COUR SUPERIEURB, 18«9.

3S1

ing

\hft

■

. Y-

tnd

^st

¥ ".,

—

the By-law then and there passed wos illegal null and void and inoperative and
fiirthcr considering that the said Defendant hath faUedto estabUsh in evidence
the existence of the said By-law, there being no evidence of its enregistration as
required by the said By-laws aforesaid, and that by reason thereof and by law
the Defendant hath shown no legal right or title t<r hold and occupy the Office
of Director and President of the said Associiition and that ho has thereby illo-
^lly intruded himself into the said Office ^^f^ljirecto^ pfe President of the said
Association, the Court doth maintain the said requele lihelUe ot the said Pcti-
tioner with costs and the Court ;dot"h oi^r and condo|^n the said defendant, &c;
La Frmaye and Papin, Attorneys for Petitionw,'*

i>0M^re<i|j»rf2)«0M»<, Attorneys for Defendant. ^i-^ ^ . i

Henry IStuart, Counsel for Defenda4t ^^-,^^-,-.^~-~-^,^ ^, .^i„„

JoAota

n.
Dulxtb.

^

■s

■t

■Ji

IN TUB CIRCUIT COURT FOB THE DISTRKT OF MONTREAL.
- •^. MONTREAL 15tH HQVEMBEH, 1853. V '

Coram BERTfiELOT, ' J. '*

••' /' ■ ■ fei' ' . ■ ' No. 8621. '..'-•-■.•.'.■

' ■ ''ip ■,'■.' itfann VS. TFifaon. '■'■-.■

Held-That no action toftiMn trinaWe against a penon tor a promfaK, made ta pay • oowcbbcial debt
contracted while a minor, unlosa sucli promiw be in writing, (i) .^* oowttBCiii, debt

The Defendant bein^ impleaded by the Plaintiff for the sum of $14 85 for
haberdashers wares, contested the aoljon on the ground that at the time of the
Bale and dehveiy tohim of sueh articles, he was a minor aged only 18 years and
wvenmonths, and that conte^^^^^

* ? * u" !. * '^"^. '"^'''" ^ ^' P'**' '^*«S^''& t*"** long since the de-

fendant becaJne of ag6, to wit in the month of April and May 1859, he ao-
knowledged the debt and promised to pay it to Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff having proved the sale and delivery and the ackndwledgement
M by hyn aUeged, ther|>artie8 were heard upon the merits.' ,
♦I. ^^"^^f o^' J— This action must be dismis^, aa the acknowledgement of
the Defendant has nev«r been made in writing. The statute of Limitations ». '
quizes such promise or ratification after ftUl .^ of » 6ommebcial debt or con-
tract to be in writing.

J.dkW. A^ Bata, for Plaintiff.
DeyarditUj for ]3|efendant.
(P.R.L.)

Aotion dlsmisBed.

r

■■■-^^■^

'■•,.*

-::■'/■ ^

f ■■■

(1) 7id« 10 ft 11 Vic, c. 11, no. 9.

. . , ■■■" ^

1

■-•\«- > .

? ■' :

1

■■';*■■■- ■

1 .

■ .•■.*".■ » '•

..■■''.-■ M ,

>._

l^^tf^^r

- 338 '^ JUGEMENS RENDUS EN COUR D'A'PPEL.

o

11= i

r

'►>§

•5 5*5 g-S" «

1

a

'CQ

a. -a

a
o

li-

OQ

I &i

Q
«

^ -

3 :

:S

8

U

o»

o

4>

9

Ul

ft

z
o

.2

&
«>

a
«

"5

0
P .

a

a
a

5 » \ 1 1 5

\'0 a 0"<J

b : • 4

e<«23

J =

S > •• « 5 5 3

-v

tfwi • • • •
ES • • • •

mi^

/

V

V.

' K*

II

%'.

1

'.- ■'

l.»K'

/. ■■

«. C

A:

JWGBMENS/REND0|||SN OOURU'APPEL.

o

III
to
III .

: :aS * : i : • : i.'-

iilliii ^

'vR:

• ' .»

JimEMUl^& RBNDUS EN COUR D'APPEL. 841

I

o

a
o

- r, »

• <• • • • • • «

.3 a • . . •• .

** "z .a .a • .a •

lU •-; "O tS . /o ;

<J • »
o*S « •--

19

a
o

-£:_

\

£•§»

1

* « 0) ^ ^

^1

2 « 4)

o^^S

* •

<r^

5 S S^S 4S?55S5S3S

• • • • '• • • '•'' «^ •

• • • • •,•»■•,, ,^

• • • • i-sli* *.«.. .-, .

: : : : vmi-^l : :

• , • • -• • •; ^* • • •

iJ< i • • • »E • • • .'j.

ll I

«0 Q

•. •• • « • • • •>•

: zJH : ; r • ? ? • • ^t :

m'

t

"1,-

f

m

T V;

■'/

l-r

"INDEX

'M^' l;'*m*'™'' PRJNOIPAI. MAT*^Sr,N THE THIRD VOLUME

or rn

LOWER CANADA JURIST.

/

COMPILED BY

STRACHAN BET^ONE, Jdvoeatt.

rAQB

141

II

r^-

ACC.OI...H.NT take, place In the donation of a muttnct eve1. by acU ^re it/,, if
8u^h deed, by its disposition, and by its clear expression create » .^.
»Htutanrec,proque ; and the substitution created by a donation and by

»w.llare regulated by the same rules of law. (Joseph rs. Castonguay

' et al., S. C.)... •

AOTIOJI en dtehtanct d'utu/ruit -.—Vide Substitdtiok. *••••.•

AcnONiHGAHANTlB:— Ftrf«RATiriOATI0N0pTlILl. '

i'' KtfOAHAHTlK:— Vide GARA^lSBlmiJi.

f N RbvBNDICATKJ*! :— FlVft JOBT ^lAL. '

yiwn/0 minor.-. 'cannot be brought d«,pteno by an adjudicataire of real
property against a party as plaintiff, Poursuivant le dicrU, to recoret
the value Of a deficiency in the extent of land sold, until such deficiencr
^ ' shall have been established in an action to reform the Sheriff-a titlV
granted to ihtuidjudicataire and correct the description of the quan-
tity of land, to which action i\^,po^f^nt and the eain must be par-

,. ., by theShenff)ttfeilfi^E:4fbar.W> ttyacj^merely personal against

, the pl„.„t.ir, «A^?is conclusive .^nc^£ quantity of land sold

and cf nj^d, as between the plaintiff and defendant, uiUil it Be 1«^

s *"y««.t#l«o"eformed?^(D|sjardinsvs.LaBttnq.^uP«.le.^?V

RBVocATOinRwilllieto havea sale of moveabl&B«t»for fJLd -«ia'^

tK though the sale be. judicial dno. (Ouimet et al,appellal!< iad

^JKieni^ca! ctal, respondents, Q.B.)... a ^ «■

AoEHT :-^n(ie Elkction AnEK*. ""^* '^ '•

Amisdmrnt:— Fi/Vplbadino. '' "^

" i— Pirfg SiiBniPF > — '-

I m

I ■

^' <

\

*

111
''IB

'fl

¥k

^

r?/ '^^^

M-

■^v i

^$s

jprf*

:;../r :"

;:-"".>«'■■

Arm

134

2&0

./"

Vidt Vmbict. " ' , ' .''.,' **"

::r.Whcri applicaUon bw been made for a ^rlt of, rrom an interioc.ilory

Judgment, «m], lu e^jnsWjnencli of i.n equal di, Won of the Court m

^to whether or not there wns ,» ,,uonim, the raoti..,, hni been lodged

(Hi dirbclcd by the judicature Act of IftM) with the Clerk of tho

. Court, Vi-dccfldings In i!,« Court below will bo Buspcnded until judg-

mqnt on fuclfmoUDn can bo pronounced. (Scott etui, rg. Scott et al.,

s. °- ^■) .• ^32

:-.Wricn application haa been made fora wrif or,from nn Interlocf/toryjudijl
ment, and, in consequence of an equal division of the Court us to whe-
;;. theror not there was aquorum, the motion has been lodged (as directed
by the-jiidicature Act of 1857) With Ihe-Cletk of the Court, proceed-
ings in the Court below will not be Stisj.cnded In coifMqnencc. (Scutt

et al., /«. Sco^t et al., S. C.) .>......„. ....^.,,

■taetuni <,iny be.fylod after prescribed delay, when toiftlered at thHtlma
opposite party moves 1,? dismiss. (Dawson, Appelt., ai.d Belle, Reg-
lid t., Q. U.) j

will lie from an Iftler!ocutj>ry judgment of the Judgeof the Superior "(Jourt"
rcjectiiig the summary Petitlou of a Defendant arrested ^ Capiat to
be discharged In the tern.s of the 12 v^. Ch. A\. § 2. (Blanckensee.

appellant, and Slinridey, Hespondent, Q. H.J. ...'.... 293

r^Bond in, by Indians is valid, wherelt is established by a'nidavit' that thay ^
arem possession as proprielofepgiccording to the"lndian csstomary -
^.; law, of certain real estate situated and lying within the tract of land

j ^ oppropriated to the uses of the tribe to which they belong. (Nii*en-

- tsinja. Appellant, and Akwireijto cl al., respondents, Q; U.).. . . . .. ..^

ABBiTiUTios :^A stipulation in a bond of, to pay a penalty, is Commlnatory (Bou-. ^''

thillier vs. Turcot, S. C.) ,..

AbohitioT :-In an action by nji, for drawing phm^nnd speilicafions andsuperVn-

. tcndiiig building, proof as to value of services cannot bo made by

adducing evidence as to custom to pay a certain percentage on the

outlay W the propri(;tor. ( Fool ner vs. Joseph, S C )

^AssudMiNta may be Uovered froni a party holding Ia.«| within the CityVf Monl

treal untfer a lease from Government for twenty one years, rene*»ble ' '
on certain\ conditions, on the ground that such parly is an dwner o«».4he
.and, with^ the meaning of the Bye-Law of the Corporation impos-
ing assses^ents on real properly. (Gould, appellant, and the Jhiyor
Aldermen a^l citizens of the (jity of Mintreal, Respondents, Q. Bl. . 197
AMiO««HT:~Thelimitat\onlnadeed of, requiring a creditor who receivcyhia
, proportion of tbe estate of an insolvent trader, to give a discharge in
.. fu", is inoperative as respects creditors not parties*, (Macfarlane vs.

Delisle and McKenzie, et al., T. S., S.,0.) .^.. ...,..'.. .. lea

" ^~W*«" »P«s'gnee of an insolvent trader holds money in his lian^^^
belonging to the t^ider's estate, the Court will order the Assignee to

' ' u ^ ^"^ *"*"^ '° *" *""'='''"« c«<l»K>'- not a party to the deed. (Do ) . . . .
:— Where the declaration of a garnishee does hot fully disclose the fiicts

"'*•"* <'"«>^»'«Ka"»js'>eemustpaythe costs ofOontestatioii. (lo)..

AasmiPSiT -.^Money paid to a co«j,actor in advance on account of tl,ij consider*-

. A **"'» of * contract for bulFding, cannot be recovered, back" by ordinary

action of a»»Mm^l»7, (Ingham' vs. Kirkpatrlck.S. C i

Atiormit :- Vide TrsBs Saisi! . <=.=»• V-i • • ,: • • t- •

Aoisobwation:— FirfeBiOLorExonANaK. . ?« " ■ -

V

pO'

233

163

163

38X

\

^

^>'

\ :-.'

■.T%^

:t'

PAOB

:^

INDEX Wj'RINCIPAI, MATTilli.

• v_' .-.

;..f ■"■;"«:
V

Ui

32

117

134

I

293
»3*C

fid-

233 fl,

V

197 •

163 -"
163 "■

1^ I.}

8»

' '^

-

"it

•* ^

"

VV

1 •*

»

.-The fact to b|, dolermiacd, whelhor iuc\ ,{gn^tu»^ ^i l'.'ui.n\"„ Z

Bitt or ^xoiUNOK, accepted by an officer of a Sbciotv * »i.i.V. V i V

two nroper.ieB,-.the division line should be run in th! Xpo,
otihe said fe„cc«and ditches, butso as in any Le to ll ?h , r ?

Tl ulnl 'f'V*«'"™™°»* Society organised under the 12 Vie .ch

,, """'""^yr (Jotf6ip>Tg. Djibois, S C )

■ '• '~"«rZ^"''"' K"«>«""« fO'ougHj to b;'add;eVsed'tQ ii,; P^s'id'ent

'^ miu:^ ";;; J-^VPU^,,! .,.0 to mdicate specially the ol^ecH;;^:^

ttons contained in 4he„7th section of the 12th Vic ch. 67 (Do ) 325

V • .^2^4^ L!!'n f'/'* ''""°" Of directors ought tobemde

. ' ;\ his Presidency. Wi ''""'* * "'"""^'•^ ""^" '

OAirAL>-PiWe CollisiojS. , Jgj^V •*■■'•••'••••'••••••!••••••.»......,... faS

■Capub t-i-Fttfis AppK4t. ., ''■^■'r-j-'— -—-■ ■ I.-.,----- ■ ---^-.^■•- .

O^.Af;^n action against, for loss of trnnk, the owner ™ay prove by his own ^'

120

3oe

103
103

4

IIS •

32S

3Zi

^l.

»

■ ■■imgj4,

••••••

r

;r^x>.

-*^

If

INDEX TO PRINCltAL MATTSttS.

'irt'

(Ming notifisd bj th« slili^-

|Vtli«m, }»lfj»)t>leta th«

▼I. Jonet M Al., and

8. OJ)

OllMia, who dcllrcra goodi to th« conilgiie«, After
p^r of ihe goodi whIUl in '''"MyflHB
■hHnXf for tilt »>lii> ibfxwftJSsKKM

Jonen at al., <lc'^'^t"P<"'4MPPHHBR|P?^- ^^i •.••/

«' it " IbriiU fur all loM 0M^mpg«^M««ptthat oeeationf /bj the Aet of

Oo4 and by tha Kiti^Kjipemie* and "by Inevitable aoe^eni and tte
major." (Haitoa Tt/ttiTorand Trunk Railway Conipany of Canada,

BO!) .::, ^

" :<— Plro4if, to tlie effecti Ibat tlia good* placed by tb« nlalptiffi^ha cat-

tody of the dtfetttant were destroyed by a ^l&Jt/tlt0ttlll9^llt^^ >S^
• .. counted fur ttberwiie (ban by the pr«iumpi{m^niuK|t wai the reiuu^

»M>

Cj

Off

•

369

of ipontan«pua«onibuition, do«a not e

wai the reiui
ble acdtdent or

^''

til major. \f/y-/ i a-

:«>-Proof, to i0fm^cl, that the dehodaot had previouitx toand at tha
(ted up in all,the Company'! Itationii, with other
Notice that die Company wouiiK not be re-
ages oeeaiioned by delnya from/itornill^ecideota
iusM, or from damage! from flre,/hi>at, &«■ ; that a
and Himilar ^nditiei)! were printed on tha back
fit X\^ Company's adVice notes to CoDsigoeos, as to the arrHa) of
goo«)ft. and that tha-wlaintiir had been seen on a former occasion
readii|g such condition and BoUfication, do.e8 not (^nstitute an agrea^
ment befweei^ plailkKT anA defendant, that tho/|^oods in question
were to tie carried on those terms, pitrticularly in the face of a simple
unconditional receipt giren by the Company for the goods as in

[tled^Qin 1

369

Oc

Oa
Da

#

./'Cftnilfli^ excmpled^Qin liability, eTett where saeb agreement is

proved, if he"be guilty ol!^gHg«nc«. (Do.). , -^360

OoLLttfiOM :— In the case of a, bctveotr two vosets in thfl Lacbine Canai, where

- the injured vessel was, {n''violat%i of tlu. Rules and Regulations .

, ^ of tho Canal, on the wrong side of the vkpali the aWn(;r of the .^

'. other vessel i^ not liaise in damaig;eB iirflSe allKnce of prtiofjHf" any '""

■ wilful act or negligence " on the part^ the craw"^ tbe latter.^ (Li

||er vs. Jackson, et al., 3.

S'-"-'*'

'#"'

«'

335

COMMMATORV ChkVBM '.— Vide ARBl^RATld

OOHMUiiiTT or ^ROPBhTT, accordiog to llM'custom of Paris, canpot exist beiween
'% parties married in En^lapdjnheJj^Lbcn'domicile, without any anten^'^
tial cofctracl, who have aftfen^pfflVaBged (heir daflucile and s'itWI
^, and dted in Lower Canada. (Rogers et. al, vs. Rd|en, Q. B-) ^- •• •

GoitrikUktloif lapjpamages, resulting from fraud, may^ be Wered in jtf ant^nsatlto

^Leroojf,

X

^ .

ft«

ent within-tbe
ihe composition^
udreau et al.

N^

lypPnst the* pi^chase money of- R^f|t>Estate
"8.0.)
GoittosiTiON :■»- A'decd pfi ' i% not rendered sj^ll by dei
' ^ specified 4el«x8„ ift)h.e creditdicfabs coDsen

with«9i|iiie MienliOf the debttirHUio com

^A^X'Amowi^,°S-C).> • •• •>->«<•". I

.',^ . "V^fwe ^'n^IBBORY vottr.'

Gdi|^iGxctfi,;|;<f> rule^annoR. .^ '

CoMTft^f, ^f"opcn, level, form and^akc" ccttftin streets and squares jn tjje City

i. "■ „ir " .. oi' Moptr^al, nec.essarily involves the making of side walks, hut not

" % the flgakipg of .feffces along the' lii^e' of such streets and around such

squares, |ii^ the repairing of the road-way. (Anderson, et. al. tb.

331

■'£4'

BpN

•\

n^

t. 134

Don,
Don.

b*!

'•% •^.'

ttt^ Mayor» AWennen ana citigenarof the cityof Montrpm, a. v.)..i iat_

*^- W-

." \

■■'■■ i«

>-j "

■R -V

."- •

y. •■ ' ■.: ■

i*V

/".

! '■-■

" ' #.

' %

kU

' 'ii

»«

* .;

169

•

k -If^'-

■ * -^

• «*

■ •-

,

V^

^

4

?6» ;,„

^ T

v\ ;

!6ft

■■•■■,•:■ ' ■

\-'*|

;. . >

-*.-^

835 -
•

■.. . *-.

■*

INOIX TO PBINOIPAL MA

^1

i

CjMifOBATioN :— FW« Ripnifli D'txiTAaoi.
** :— F««f« EviDiNil.

" ^ muit iito In lit own name and b« Itielf before th« Court; and si

action in which It purport! to b« nprtMntad b» Its tHoutlv* will b«
ditmltgcd. In luch a caie th«re U nothing to ainend by.. (Tht Cor-

por»^4n of the I'arlih of St. Jcruialcm vt. QuIm. C. C )

OOiM 1— rW# JOBV Tiiut,.
" :— prfr4)FPO!iftioiirf/l««/rrf<i^tt<£f. , '*'

" :->k(J(r/« ENQDiTt. ^.^ f . , . ..^.

•« -.— I'iXfOfPOainoii.dflnSieonuntr. W ^ fc

OBoa«:— FwXfi»,n,NrK, # ^ if

Davaoh :— 1,1 ictlon for, for falit Impi^Uonment, the defendant acting bonSJldt and

^ /under the rensonablo bellrf that he wm authorized by lutute Is entl-

4» J''*'* *» «•>« monthe notiee of action, under 4 k S Vic. ch. 28, and

i^ — '— 534 k 15 VIo. ch. 84, atd a pica of want of lurh notice may rightly

cofraljjde to the country. (McNanM||Tg. Hine», S. 0.) .V

:— A «harehWdsrln a Railway Conipan"who,ha« traniferred bli ibarei
^ •» co"*'«''''»'^"ri'y, tn^y bring an action of damagri against the
% Company for refuiing to regletcr inch transfer during a period of

- ^ T "-^^f'^on^*, and thereby causing him great pecuniary loM, although

^ ; such transfer be prepared In theform of the Company's charter. And

the allegations that the transferees had oflcrcd to surrender such
transfer to the Opmpany, and had demanded that the Company should
transfer the shares on their books, are sufficient to meet the re-
quirements of Ae Company's xhartor. (Webster, appellant, and
Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canad^feapondMt, Q. B.^i..,.
Vide MoNUicAL.

OoMPRNHATIOif. ' / . .r

0I.LI8I0N. ■

Pj^°t necessary, In the case of • uniTcrsal legacy. (Robert
et al-il^Borion, et al., S. C.) ».

wtm

'#'

»4

109

DilAVaD :— iThe dcip

HT

la

23a

ft*

> ,

m

"«• ■(/'

124 ,.

WP

•\

■::%

thereof citnnot be enlertqined^ before IHe returOay ^ the
proceeding, particularly if notice of siich application by anticipation
. . : be hot given to thff adrerse party. (The Canadian Building Society

of lUonlreul vs. LaMontnghe, S. C.).. <

«» ♦:— The dem^fid thereof cannot be received whijc the cause la en dtlibtrt.
Ai. J K*'^-)'"-' k.... i4m*»» 2

PSBTITOTIOH D« TU""" :— KW« TCTOR. /. W .

Opmcitf :— In the case of a Scotchman who origihaHy had his domicile in Scotland,

• *»"* nbiindoned that domicile and established a new one in Jamaica, '

; « and .finally gave up and left his Jamaica domicile with the intention

of returning to Scotland, but died before his return, bis domicile at

'•"^ *'WiS(;8f '"* *'**''' ^*'" *'* **"''* *° be Scotland. (Ferguson tb.

Pow and others, Scotch case.). , , . . i2»

DORlitlON: — F«/e ACCRfl^SBMENT.

DoHATiOM OnfeBKCSE, the ciiarges whereof exceed the value of the goods given, is not

null, for want of insinuation. (Rochon ct war. vs. Duch.ne et «j.;,,S.O.) 183
:— f'irfe Rk«i3Tratio». „

it—

:— The resolution thereof, fpPtnfrott«i4f/c«|BOt be demanded as against "^
a tiers dttenteur, notwithstandiipg h« |nay have assutaed "the p^ment
«f the charges of the donation. (Mart'in-^s, Martin, S. C.).'. ....... 301

;— The resolutioiii ttiereof eannftt be prosecuted, -without putting all the

parties to tbeidiWenidute. (Do.JT

y'^" — ^ — ■ — » — ^t-

/

J.* ■«*■■

O'

Vl ;% ^ IMDBX TO PRIKCJIML MUtTUUL^

'=# ' -■ ^"'""'-'■■'^i-.^.jMn'

lilOTilMt !— TtBsnt owing only one term o/ r«"nt WAy b«t ejeetii.l In «trtu« of It '"""'

Vie. ch. 108, t. 3) par. 4. (Mniduuncll ot. al. Vt. Cullini, H. C). . . . 41
** i—^*nM% owing 3 montht r»ni ennnol h* *j«ot«d for (hut csum alone,

under th« pro* iaiuni of lh« tbore «ta(itl«». (Healy v». LiilMtllc, N. C.) 4ft
IlMTMII Aoimt cannot too for Ihn valu« of liU irrticoi, without proof of a tpcclal
undertaking hj the priucipat to \ff^ for tll« Mm*. (Glrouar4 re.

Beaudrjr, 0. C.)." .>....«............. ....^ 1

EiqniTi :— I'itfr Arri*t. #

" I— Ooate or, when made uiolnialy, will be awanicd ngalnil pairt/ making

■ame. (Liiiilar ct ai., appellant*, and (iloiitcnvy, rcaponiicnt, Q. II.) 390'
BTiDiaoi;— In an action fielween ^nrllct wtio ar« not (ntdern, tlie pUintlff'a

n«pli«w I* Inrompetcnt to prove the lale and delivery of 0re<-wood. ■,

(Ueilmrata va. Hurray, H. f!.)...^. , Jt-:

" :— An executory etftuact camntA be proved bj pwol. (TnideMi t( *i.

ye. M«Jm»rd,S. 0.) ...*'.. «...,.,.,.. ....,* SI

" i—VLU iniivnAtiea. '

_, '^«». iw-Vid* Camiimh. , _._.; . ;_;__._.A Ll U.^ ^ „1:^

'* ' t— In a non-comroorclal eue, the payment of morjey miiy be proved try
aubacribing Witneaaea to a receipt, to which the pnrty receiving the
t money haa Afllxcd |ii* mark or croaa, but in the examination of auch *

witneiaea it ia irregular to begin by aakinji whether or^ot the amount

baa been paid. (Ne veu, peri et ux., va. DeBleury, B 0.) . , . , 9T-88

" >-A clerk ia incompetent to prove, that a receipt given by him for hia '
employer to a cuatomer for a auni of money waa , given by error, and
J. that lie did not actually receive the money acknowledged by tl|ie

receipt. (Wbitueyva. Clarke, 8. C.).>.. 8»

I [UovcrHcd in Appeal Cth June, 1869.]
' ", r— FWe InaoBAiiCB. ' . *

M !->Fii/« 1)11,1. or LAUINO. .^

" :— A Corporator may be awitneaa for the Corporation, if it api^ear that .
' ' he haa DO intereat in the result of the aiiit; (MoM vs. Carmichael,

<• and iUilroad Car Company, oppoaanta, 8. C.)i.... 168

'* :— -A parly to the record, although not inter<iated cannot be exanyined

■'_- in the cauae aa a witneaa. (Uuim^t et al. va. Sen<Scal et ai.; S. 0;ii. lit'

'• :— -A party to the record, and not interoated, con be a vltqeaa lH (bo

cauae. (Do.) ,,^ ."..,.181

'* :->-Tbe oraiaaion of the uaual worda "y fieriUlt " itt the end of n d«|Mil-

tion ia not futdl. (Garden et nl. va. Finlcy, et al., 8. G.) ', 383

" :— The payment of a note, aa betweett partiea not trader*, ennnot bo

proved by witneaaea. (Do.).... ..',%•. .....•...•.....».< ^. 333

M h— Fi(/C P«RTNXU8tiIP. . . i"-^ ., •

" ' •* s— A clerk is competent to prove that a reeelpl given by him for hia em-

I ployer to a customer for & sum of money was given by error, and that

, he did not actually receive the money acknowledged by the receipt ;

and in such a case the weight to be given to the testimony of the

clerk ia a question to his credifoility which depends upon the circuig-

M^ atancea of the cose. (Whitney, stppellant, and Clark, respondent,

iP Q. B.).......... ../.^..., , il$

IzcnPTiott d /a /orme ;—Ftrf< Writ or flDHMoiia.
. •• •• " cannot be fyled to a «(/{We arret nfter judgment, and trill

be rejected on motion. (Molson va. Burroughs^' and the Bank of
Montreal, T. o.)... •••...• .. . ..'..««..*.•«...•."#........ .^i. *.•■ 93

" d /u/orme :-> Fuf« Writ or simuoxs.

" diclinatoirt :— " " " ;

— — , '". . ■ :' — ' r— — —

IMDIX p PiiilOf»A|, IIATTllW.

^"---...J

1

■^"- — ,

iS

ftt

rtai

■tnVTiov, iui^td on ft ju,|gmrni«gnlm(iiTtr«l <t«fi^B.knli Joloil/, dlr«.:U.| •K«|ntt

— *. ' ""• "' "'••» '"' «»•• *»• •>• «««bl I* lii'gnl •ii.i will b* Mi Mldt on

^-l— — ,«f NjilUoo, wtllioal trvB « Unaer of (he ninount H»Uy My«(>t« by

. •ircK-lWiMuliint (MeikM «. DtlJ.H«oh .nd I)«B«rUcb tl •!. mi.

^ ■ •■>«**'■«, »<! miMiiiftoti)|l, oppniMiii, H.O.) Ill

, I— Where Iwo rxecutlonJlfcitj. 'iii t),« tmi of dURirtml (wrtlVi, ngtlrttt tb«
^ Mmt dertndartt, iIiq HIi.rtfSM^rMH uaiu both MUitrca in on* protit -
w»'6«/. (8«n<)e»^n n. liitf dft^rfpeui^., and Ho/ dil Liip«ni4«,

oppoMni, fl. 0.) i....?rx, c......

• ff'^nflfmedln Ar>|*»|;l«tD«cemli«r, 18B9.J

It! it A«TictM:-Jjl DIroctor of an liicorimrnlrd Oompifty^ln « tnit b«twa»
blm and a member of tba fame U«in|.any, !• Iield lo'alB»«r|5^r categori-
cally inch InterrogHtoriee $Mr/uU, ,t arliclu, a« have b«en'i1f*pj;^ed
to him i)y the diiendruU, touching traniaetluni of the Ulrectora^or-
•iiob yompany, nolwithitandlng ft\» declaration on oath that tb)
r.*VT i"''"'"'* *' •'• ••■''■»»«» »• bba. (btcroU w. Ptrnalt 4*

119

•t . n

may bo aerved and returnee) before any inlcription on the Rdltd'Eit'
^uilf, ( Morcau and »ir r§. L4oBaf d, B.O.).. , ,

*"*v» V'""'^'^"" "no vir ri,
fiua iMrRiioin/iNT:— FirftDaMAOH.

IM

IM

S16

soa

FiMlf :— The conveying or croiiing of perioni *o., orer n ri»er, within the limiU

of another'* eiciuiive right of fcrriugo and traniport, although dob«

. gratnitouily, If U ultimately produce gain to the pcnolt working tfa*

unauthorited ferry or orouing, J» a oroiiing and gain within lb«

Ueaning of the Statute, and an infringement of tlie eicluaiva right*

created I hereunder. (Leprohon vi. Giobeniky, S. 0.)

Few* ueuiMi :--The Jdjmiicalairt la not co«/roi«rna«« par eorp$ to the payment
of colli incurred on the resale of the property, but only for the difh-
rence of price of the two adjudications. (Tlie Trust and Loan Com-
pany of U. 0., Ti,4)oyl6 otai., and Stanley, mtjudkatoirt, 8. 0.)....
FaiioBT :-.>'«<« VaiiDOB. .;•
OABAKTia BliiFLB, (-lc«o» «ii) Will He by B proprietor for damagci caused to his tenant
by B third party by reason of the demolition of a miloytn wall, and
this, although the plaintiff «n garantit may himself be liable for a part
of the damages recoverable by said third party ; the maintaining the
■ ' . ''«•>* o' action in such qose being moreover to facilitate procedure

and avoid a Circuit of actions. (Delvechlo vs. Joseph, 8. C). aa«

<CklA»ARTra :— Ki(/« Lbttcb or.

'^ABPiW :— In the case of a rule for eontrainle against the Sheriff, as garditn, allow-'
Ing BO -alternative but payment of 'plaintiffs' debt, where, in conso-
qiMoCopf the Sheriff having pleaded that the value of the cffeoU was
only of a certMn amount, the Court of Appeals has ordered that
]>roof bemade of such value, ai^d that the liule be made absolute
with power to tlwi Sheriff to libesMfpiLimsolf from the contrainte on
payment of such value j ibtflj^^ding such judgment of the
. Court of Appeals, and the pj^Wmift thereunder, the Rule will be
dismissed, on the ground that iV'te)is ^^t itself give the alternative
of paying the value of the effects seized'. (Leverson et al., ti, Cun-
ningham and Boston, Sheriff, nlU tn eauu, S. 0.) »t

[Reversod in Appeal 4th'May, 1869.] ^^
of moveable property cannot, during the pendency of the seizure, compel
the surrender to him of such moveable property of the defendant, iu ; ^
the absence of positive proof that the defendant i| deteriorating it by I'.

■l<

^ —

y^i

I

<•.

'■- ■■■"■- -.

^

::-\.:i-:

J

' '-^ ' . ■

•

-■ /, -;::v,^^-^..^ ■•

la

k

INDBX TO. PRINCIPAL MATTERS.

rAoa

135

223

' '.-^-w'

iOipfoper use. (PalsgraVo vs. Sdndcal et al., md Priciir, ■ gardftn,

Petitioner, S.' C ) f ...........* .../.'... lie

ARMiii of ni(^v.eabre |iropcrty, under a seizure suspended by opposition, cjinnot
oppose the sale dlT the same proixirty s6izid under a subsequent execu-
tion. (Donally vs. Nagle, and McDonald, Oppbsant, S. C.)

t—Propf jof the value of goods, ordered to be restored by a gardien,
undct a Rule for conlruinle pqrrorpf, may be established by the verbal
ndmisstop of the plaintrff ni to such value, made at the time of the
seizure of thft^oods. (Leverson et al., Applts., and Bos|(mi, Rcspon-

Q.B.),. ...^ K....:..

A tended to the Attorneys ad litem of the Plaintiffs, who reside beyond
the Ijmitg of the Brovincc, of the , value so i>roved as above and of the
costs \)iS the Rule, where tl^e Rule has bee^ dismissed and an Appeal
sued but in couscqucnco, 6ut, made before service of Appeal, will ,'
■ciitltlc the Respofldent to the costs of Appeal, where the judgment \
10 Appeal does not award-a larger amount than that tendered. (Do.) 223
'.'''. :-rrpni»Rulfe such as the abcive, where the plaintiffs reside ^eypnd: the
_. '• •* yirnjta of the Province, the Court will order the ^rtrrfiente-ba^relievcd

-:#T "^ _ iVom the eo/i^rain^f, oh depositing the established value of-tUe goods in
» ,j. ^ tlie hand's of the Protljonotary. (Do.). ,,..... i ..,,,..'.,... ......

Htp.0Th4(HI1! fe6.v|iiiAi/K^ of date before the prissing of tlie Registry law'- and,/egi3-

, terc\l asT late as the 20th of November 18i51, will opei-ate as h legal

v^^^' j>7 mortgage on land held by a tiers ilftcnteur, whose title was registered

',_'*** subsequently, namely on the 20th of September 1854. (^Mogo vs!

> : Dupr^C.C). ;...;. ....,....;..... .V. ..v^. .. .

t' I — Fj./c'REGisVr.iCTiON. • • ■

IspfAHS, hftvc not by law lyiy right or. title by virtue whefc'of they can sell- anJ
- ^- dislioi?e-of-th^ woo(J g^oning.upoii'th'rir lands set apart and appropli-

■ , at^d to andfof tJje useof'th'e tri'bc orbody of Indians therein residing,

v.* , »a»3 such weol| is held in trusti)y the Commissioner of Indian jl'aitjts
'in Lofferl5a^ada. <Tie Goinmissioner of Indian lands for t. 0. ta.
* ' * Payarit idit"^St. Lnah, and Payant dit St^. Onge, Plaintiff en gifr^ ya.
" ., • Oofanoron* dcfen^Ant €/» gfl)*, S. C.)
■" : — FjrfeApPKAL.il

Insi

f\^

'^

223

*^'

138

\

r^

313

(Marti!

■m-

' . MBOSiPTiON BN PAiw:— Election of domicile n*t. necessary. ' OJartinieau-vs. jCarri-

"'m '• — T'le Del^indiint en/«ux (Pri^qipal Plaintiff) is not bound toanswer the
. . •'• plea to the principal action, before the inscription en /iiux is termi-

" • 'iiated. <Martine«u vs. Karrigfin.S. C.)... ,..,..' ;. .'..t.. ...'

IiisimrATiON:— Fj'/e boxAtios (^.vfenEESE. <>:..

iNacBAHCBf:— Th?"23rd Sect!ori«pf the Act 4, William 4, Ch. 33, respecting doubje
' ' Insurauce% otvAousies or buitftin^s, docs not. apply to insurances on

,»; , J- gooiii. (Ohahners, Appellant, and The Mutual iPire Insurance Cofci

'; pany of Stnnstead anS Sherbroofce Counties, respondent, Q.B:)...,.

" , i-^jv-^n endorsement or. a Policy is3ued»under the provisions of said Act,
* . ^consenting tor the removal of the' goods injured from the building des-
cribed in the P61iMyt^pti«»th« building, ahd signed by the Secretary

alone, is bindinjwjfflj^omjTiw)/.. (Do,). ^.

:— V^n ajction on.iijpoKcy agflinst ^e, for the value of a iiOHse attached

on both sidefXo ofher btiild!ng\and inhabited for a portion of tho

. time during yi'jcMJ»*-l»*Upy.was rujtnfngJijMrour tehants.'Ts maintai^-

1 able,Mhougli\thc'house isocscribed ia the" pOtic^J-ns, detached froJO'

I other building^nd inhak^d by twotcuantif \ pjuvided'jt |>e proved,

190

<268

!i*A-

JtY'

N

Inter

JCOQI

JODOl

Jooio

«

(♦•a

*

II^l

-r

IDKX 90 Pt|lNCIPAL BIATTERS^

) *

tK

»("»■

■A-

i^'

that the error in tlic description of tlio liouae waa mad« by the 'agent
of tlie insurers, igid tlmttbe increased number of tenant* itere notftt
the bouso cither at the time of Hho eiTccting of the Policy, or at t|mt

of the fire. (Spmcrs vs. Athcnximi Insurance aociety, ». C.J OT

Inbcdancr :— The true description of the premises need not be alleged in the decla*

ra^tion, nor tlie error alluded to. (Do.). ...... .^ ..;. 8t

" •"A" answer to a plea by defendant alleging ttiemisdej^iription may be
* nindc. admitting the misdescription, but charging the error upon the

Pluintiff's agent, and it is no departure. (Do.)

" :— 'I he parol testimony of the Agent is sufficient to sustain the answer

and sustain the ncMoii. (Do.). ',,.

" * : — It'maltes no difTcrencc that tlie policy was ffer a year before the firo ia
pliiintifrs possession unobjected to, -with a printed notice upon it to

examine it and see if it was. correct. (Do.).'. . . ». ••

• "■ :— Or, that the diagram to wliich reference was made, both in the interim
receipt afld in the policy, corresponded with the description in the

., . # policy. (Do.)..... ........................ .......^

'• :— Under a clause in a poUey of Insurancei that if there appear traud in •
^ the claim rbade to. a loss, Sr" false swearing or affirmation in support
• ^ thereof, the claimant shall forfeit all benefit un,der such policy^ the
Court will reject the claim of the Policy holder, if the Company esta-
blish that the claim is unjust and fraudulent, and far in e.icess of the
actual loMf to 'the knowledge of the policy holder. (Orcnier et p«r,
vs. Tlie Monarch Fire and Life Assurance Company, S; C). . ./..... 100
^^— In a case such ns the above general evidence may outweTgh posi-
tive testimony. Where the latter i3 not consistent, and where there are ^

, presumptions agftinst its truth. (Do.). i ... . . .... *

:—TJiic condition of a policy imposing^he penalty of a forfeiture of all

^medy *p)n it^l^ thc-event of any fraudulent overcharges is ndt

ComminaTory, Iftrfwill be carried Out, if auch overcharge} be provec^,

(Thomas et al., vs. The Times andf^eaci^n Fire Assurance Company

*!•

,67
*

67

6T

r I

'•>

«c?

w

100

,1*

[prQWisscg^notc payable^ to the ordet of a Mntual Insurance Company
Hndvcn In prtyment pf prcmjum of Insurance, is negotiable. ^ (Wood

162

16»

fi^.*".

...ys.Siiaw.S. G.).."" ...................... ^.. ji.-.»....

;-*■ A- memorandum at the foot,of such a note indicating its consideration
does not limit its negotjability," *(Do.)... .. ...I.. s.:*.v ........,>• . 16»

—The indorsemtiht qf. snch a note by the Secretary, of th^^lbmpany, in
that^ capacity, j8 sufl&cient to pass the title to the note W^en an implied
'aij;th(^ify in him ^4o8p has been shown by, proof of' the ordinary - '
' course of business ofthe Company, that the directors had effected the .
- . arrangemeiits with the hplders of 'J^hich the trans^ir of tlife' note form-

ed parj^Und tliaC the Cdt^^y had received-Uio consideratipn of suci)
; . trarts^ (Do.). ...... .":..:;.,. ...^. ..;.,. ;v....^,,. .^.;..^... 1^^

I»TER^BNTio»:-^When allO»^,;t|Siparty iptervening may, plead to the action, anS
. " this, notwithstanding that the plaintiff may have pleaded to the Inter-

- Jv. ven'tiowi (Beaudry vs. Laflrfmme, and Davis Ioter\:e,hing piuB»y,S. C.) 263
Jooas in banco n^y revise arid reverse the rute of another. Judge 6f the Court

slttingiat Enquite. (Scott et al., vs. Scptt et al., SVC*).... .,..».. . lS4"

JODOHiiNt OF Di.8TtiiBtr,TiM may be Contestedj before its homologation. On ccuise being
^wn, ai#on payraen.t of costs. (Provost, ta. D% L'esde^ers*and

<5

:\' :

J, JTCOIOIAL 8«LB

• .<

hinglA, Opposan^, contesting, S.,C.).-^. .\

ACTION RfevOCATOIBB.

%^'

16&'

I. '

':;.^^"''

t-

h

\. / % ■• . ; ' / * ^^' ' ■ ■ • * "

V ,•" ir .. . ' ■ • ' ■< "'y ;

.^^ •■,jrcifTTBiiil'::— i^iV/cVEinhfcT. • , ^ . « " »*«»

'• <vM :_Wi,cto Opurt-'br Appcnls, to seKiasf nsfdo. yc-rdict nnd ordcrinR new •
[ \. ', t""!. <«<>'Hl«'nn3 Uefcnduut to pay the costs iiv the, Sujiortor Court,
, ■ /;,"• *^fM>Q'«'^»P«j;''>'n« whntc(WiH, no othfrrwats wmbeallowc(l thnn
' • ' ^''Sf' attfnilant on tjie mo)i|on for the neV trial. (Ueaudry vs. Papiji
ApapjUiJn.opposaijt.S.lC. )..:-. '....,',, .' .'. 45

['levcrsc«l In Apjieal, Gth June, 1859.] i

* " canpQt bo Iwd ill an flltjtlon en recemlicalion, for stolen goods, although

bc)\«e<ifn morcliant ai^ merchant. (Fawcctt ct al., vs. Thompson ct

■•*' ■ *• „. ... *''.^C.),.. ...;■.:..; ,,^- ^ ,...33$

. :— .MVStjjin for a new Trjal canno't be made after the first four dnya of the
■ ' - ten* "•'^ feUowing the day o'n trhioli the-vcrd'uTt was recorded.

X- . (Vcrrltt^a. LyncI),"8.'C)....,{ ^ ^ , 276

'■' :-^>'We StnsTiTUTio.Ni ' " . , '

^ .' ' » IJIflSiW AXD'LgSSBB:— f'WeEjBCTMSIST. " * '■"''..

• '/"**■ s-eT^e purchaser of a.hofisfe at a SherllTs sale has a right of action against

;, 'tlKKTctitrpHtttforjrgivi from the d^te of the adjudlqation. 'j(Lacroix ►

T3. rri^uf, s.c:5:Tr:^^^„.U^ „ ,:...- ^ «^

. . " :-»-Tb& occupant iin above case who1r5Trro«ca°aIl his effects to another
'; • bouse is liable for the ojjtire year's rcn];. '(Lacrou>3t^*«iaar, H.l} )'.. ' 42

» ^ " ^"T^**- (^"^'<*"K«l''*''i,Ps>I'o«'0. let al., vs. Payette, S. 6.)'.'. Trrrr^.1^

•" :— Of a concert room, has no lieo An a pj^iCho ttmporarily -placed there for

4 an evening concert, fprjhe rent of ttfe room, ajr against the pyojjrietor

'1 ;. of t''c piano, who is npUhe lessee of the r^opi. (Peik»ce vs! tfte Ma/or*

' ,"•■*' Alderpjcn nnd Citizens of tliie City of Montreal, S.C ) 122

, " ,:---'A d.jclini\tOfy exccplion U good In lavir 'to an <A;tion of damages ' ^
for non-deli Very,, of pfemiscs leased "instituted unJer the provi-
sljtaas of The Statute 18 Vic. di. lOSjCoramdnty called tbe Le»8orsaod

,' , Lessees' Act, '^'Olose vs.xpigse, S. C.) ., ,..' 140

'.■''' " :— The SujHitJor Court ]im^rko'Juri)4klion in an aJition #u«Sh as the
' ^^ " - • at)as>-e. (Do.) !j...... "..,*,.,. >^, *; i^

,'> *" ;" '.:— An Action of damages caused by bad usage fipay be brought under 18
\ , V yic. ch. 108, even after the lc*se basNcxpired. (B^dard .Vs. Dorion,

• ^-^^ "...'....1 253

." :—W action, iastitufed under the 18 Vic. ch. 108, the defendant is not
' . ' bound to plead bVtwecn the l(Jth of July and tlie 31at of August, in

consequ'encfi of the 'provisions of the 54th Section of itli6 22 Vic. cb, 5, '
even where it is alleged that the lease has expired and dcfuid&nt rd-

, ' , ■ ' fuses to- qiiit. (Clftirmont and tiitt vs. Dickson, C. C.)..'. . . 256

. ", i^MTW OF. ,G?jfnAHTi:iir— When its effect has been terminated by» notice, and, after

' '» ' ' 'tihai V"od payments have been made by the original debtor beyond .

• . t ' ' ^^ amount covered by the guarantee, without special imputation,
■ ' «nttchpa>mcntarwill aoibeimputed in extinction of theguarantee, but
, • , '. in liquidation^ofthe debt uncovered by 9uch guarantee. (Masson ct #

^ , *' ' ' '*l-» va- DeSmarteau ct al., S. C). * .,..-. '......, 18(1

'A *•"',. •'* t-TPaymentS ma^e; ^-itliaut imputation by the debtor, will be imputed in

,, ' • extinction of th© guarantee. (Leblanc vs. Rousselle, S. C.) 191

*' ' given to one of the menders of a commercial firm, can be sued ^dh-' by
• '■ . f ^'JC' firm, Ti^hea it is Shown that tlic business 'which gave risi! to the gua-

. ^ '■ \ rantee wae carried on by the firm and not by such individual member. '

"' , * (Holland ct al. vs. Loranger, S, C.) , ^« • . .. .i* . ■• 348

' " L|iJ(|:— yWeLMBon. - . '• T "

, .. t , . ',, , (»»

•r ^ ■ • "! „ .1 ^ _

■ ■ ' ' " .■'»»'>"■. ' ' 1 ^ " . ' ^^

■ V ' . . ,/ • ...

\

A'
\

''m

/ ..

■:-ift«n-s^«-

^

:-\

^

EX TO PRINCIPAL MATTEH8.

1

. 46

t

I

r

r
i
122

140 ■

110 •

t

• ' 'f,

253 •'

xi

TAoa

:€>

Il*iw:— FiWe EviDESci.. .;':,;fe, ■ ^ . >■ -^t ' ■ - ' ^

Mabteu AND Sjsiivant : — Villi waom. . *■ , ^^

Minor: — VtiU'tvTOu. > ,

UiNORifT i—Commcrria/ debt contracted during, canoot be recovered unless it' be
ratified in wrt^i'n^r after tbc^partv bcnometi major. -^Mnnn vm. Wilson,
8,<J.) ^;......... •........^,..r........

Uomtreal: — Corporation c/fTbe Cily of, cmjnot, undorihe 14 and 15 Vic. «h. 128,

impose a duty oivtbc Amenta in tbis city of Foreign Insurance Com>

panics doing business tb'erein. and conseqiientjy* that any Bye-LaW

■ affecting to imposo.such duly is null and void,, (TbeMayor, Aider*.!

-''^ men and Citizens of The City of .Montreal, appc^Uants, and Wood,-

337

respondent, S. C).

.t..

\::y

•V

«*"••

u

: — An action against The Corporation of Montreal for damages,' r^auUing.
from want of fenecsand ditches which Jhe Corporation, was hoiind to
make under the Act authorizingthe construction of the Aqu^ductfor The
Montreal Water Works, is prescribed by the lapse of six-naonths. (pi-
geon, appellant, and The Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of The City
of Montreal, respondents, Q.'B.). .i^. «....,f ...><.'. . . . .. >. > . .». . jt

- Vide^ OvFOBinon d fin ((annulltr. :■''.;•>

:— Firfe ExoBPTiON 4 /fl/orme. '.. • f ', • '

: — >'»</« HAi^BAiuifrr, afterjudgmcnt. . , , .

•.'-Vide Jv^l^uuh. ' ■ ■. „ 'C ' .. ■

,?3».

•84

*v

255

* I-

*

' *

' "^

18S

191

■

249

•

»

'

/ '

Opposition: — dfin d'dnnullt^ dated after tjie making of the affidavit appended thereto)

must be so/asiSsi^ (Wulker vs. Burroughs and Burroughs, op'pt. S. C.) 63
uif/er, cofftftining frivolous or insuflicient grounds, wilt bo -
■ rejected on nJoti5lt>-^!MciDoncU vs. Grenier alias, Grinier, and Gre-

_ nier, oppt., §. C.) . . . . .■'. . 'JyrT^^^^^v:^"'-'--*-!^.^^;" ^ • • • .• • f> fB

: — d fin d'unnuil^r, may be fylei.tp d^venditioni exiiouaTTttttrrUf^tjBreiit "-■'
be nptigtyieii on the fate of the writ jfor payments previously miade on
.%tji4uht'^isf tite judgnicrtt.'sj^E^ty'jl'd Mar,-vs. JfiMcj.^^ «tfyHr^,etet!tr,. ..

'. oppts., S. C.) . ..... . . . . . .V. 4 .Ay. .'..,. .»".••'• •'• • • • ••'''■'>' • • \ .73

: — dfimt'aniiuUtrlmnj he fyled tip s venditioni ixponas di /errts,^f land"
en rMUre has been advertised |p be sold tp a parish other thaU iK^t in
^ which it is situated. .(Do.)".

^dfin i'annulter, ihe«ffect ^ *hilch has beei! removed by a subsMllfeht
{kmendrnq^t^jOf the.protsecdings, will be rejected 4)n motKin, |iufVith-
out costs. (The Trust and Lodn Co. of U. C. v^. poyfe-an^tan-

^ ley oppts. S. O.) ...'...., A.- •• • ?•■•■;> •■...'iSl:

: — dfin de consercer may be fyled^ by permi3slftSiof.C!ourt, at any
timi Jteforo the homologation 'of\ Report p^ .(foUooation,,oiis pay-
ment of such- costs ns may bo inci^red in reforming the Rcpwt aqd
iOfi. additional. QYoodmii^^fc; Lfetourneau. and Ed. LetoUrtfeau,

oppt. s. c:)A m!. 1 :?.^: . . . . :

,: — d fin de comervcr, jto an application foi a Ratification of title, fj^ed by
ahypotheiary creditor whose ^laim is'Wrotectcd by t& titl^deed, Wifl •'
not «*rr/ costs. (E^xparte Jjenoir et Lamotbe nnt) ^1.', opposants,

. S G^)H^- ]..........;:.;., s......^..r303

d fin de distraire .-—Where plaintiffs declare thottlwy do not contest, an'd*
main JJ^tfA of the seizure ^s in consequence granted, (fbsts wjH be grant|d ' „
agairtslt flie defendant but^not against the plaintiffs^ (Corse vslTay- . '
. lor and Taylor opposant^ S C.) ..l , .,! 1^7

^Ki^'PfcHBMHTlO^Mi'lNBTANCB. ' ' * . •

■ M

'i .'

\'

•at

' •*, ^

i"<«».

0 *

%

\ -

'* r^

xU

IN^EX TO PRINCIPAL HATTERS.

V

riow

ui

285

tJ-:*.-

A'.

fW-

PARTKinsnip :-Onc co-pnrtncr cano«t, nrter the dissolution of the firm, buo another

«=°-^"'''n»'«'.">)r«?"Jer««accoiij*< Without himself oflToring'and tender-
ing an ftccpurit. (repin -vs. €liri*tin dit'St. Amour, S. C.)

" crfi^not be proved, as against a pcpLn sueil as a secret partner, by the
" testimony of one of tlie ostensible partners. (Cliapman, appellant-

V^ nnd .Masson, respondent, Q.B.). °.

F&HMPTIO.V DlNSTANCB :-An oppositiOn is subject thpreto. (Blackburn vs. Walker

^, and Wulltcr, opposnnt, S. C.) ,». tg^

i " :^A judgment discharging an inscription for hearing on the merits in an

• "ctMlfli 9rtn/n^ir, on the ground that the inscription was "prema-

^; •^-*"'''."(*''««""lginiil action " not having been heard and adjudged)"

' has .the e(rccp)f suspending such actionew ?rtr<(n/:e and of preventing

^^m),/,'/,•,)n.rf^,^,^,,,re. (Arclmmba^ilt, appelli^^

. . 4^8^B.).,.... ^ : ::.,.i;...^22ii.

: -may be covered: by a, valid proceeding, 'so long as no judgment inter-

Vipnc decfiirinJt'thiB cause pirme. (lieaudry vs. PiingueVS. 0.).'. . . 237
!— A cause wiU/Ke adjudged /s^r.^Kfo,. although the plaintilTa "At- "

torneys Jiave oprtsed to practice their profession. ..([the Jfew 01t»
' Gas Company, of Montreal vs. MacDonuell, S. C.)Ul.'.. 4..^ ..„.,;, gg^-

„.(•■

'M

:_A inere n.»tice of motion does not amount to a ilfMrndtf^iiirempiion,

andlt > compeTteMVto the opposite party to previ'nt thefetftet 'of th6

. : /'<*'<«'/''W.byiypfing-ft.procceding in tlie cause between tile giving of

. - . ^ the notlce~«ri(rthe acljmlanalijng of the motion. (MacDonald- et al .

v^.tloy.S.C.) f...^ [_ ,..,.'..

'/■" , Plbadino :— A and B., with «hnm C has made a contract can join i« IhV same' ac-
• - s tmn, although they -be not partners. (Trudeaa and nl. \vs. Menard

; ': V s. c.)...... :.,... ...,...(f..\ c,

I— J'We Insur'anck. . ,

— Vide DaHaoes-. ' " . , ' '

—A clerical error in a, can be amended at the finai*Uaring. (Frolhinr-*

,, ham vs. GiIbert,S.d.).... ,......>., /. ^:. .............. .

- V: •^ :-^lea3 ofpayinent anS general issue may be pleadadlBonjointly. (Sa-

^,^ '•'^•'•t vs. Eiuce,s.c.):.. .;,..:... ........,...s^;..^. ,,-.

Pbbsoription-— f'j'/c MosniEAi.. .^'^-—--^A-^fr^'' -"

-^-^-^ :-~Kfrfe WTtoBar— "^ *~~7^ ■ - ^ . ' "m^''. , ,- '

^11

303

52

13a

137

17g

C5

16»

Pbomisb OP Sale .(whicli,i3 eq livalent .to a sale) althon|ll-*J^rbal is obligatory.

(Pinsonnault appejlant, and Diib^, responiid'ni^O. B.).'

PBfliiiissoRY XoTSrf/* 6;-,u-«, bef.re Nolfaries, is a33ignabW,.Jiiy endbrsepetf); in the

or.linary way. (MorHn vs. Lcgau,lt,dit De^ofuriers, C. C). .!'.'!:. . .

•—A holdtrof n'/gotiable paper as Collaterjvl security, before it became
due, is not afectcl by any equities between t.'ie original parties.
(Wood rtnd al. vd. Shaw, ^. C). i.^. . ,^ ,

:— An exdiM.i.!t« of negotiable paper' is sufficient to constitute each
party to sii. h exchange a holder for value of the paper ](ie reCeivM. •
(•>»•) -.••y' ...*... ...;.,..■' |i|f......../i6»

given b>' an insolvent debtor to a creditor, in' Qonteniplation. of a
deed of cortiposirion and as a preference to such cre^itol without the'
knowledgeofUif!,(liercrpJBtors,r» Mill and void, andWijIl bedeclHrid
80 evena^ aga .jst the compouncha^ creditor hirtself. (G^fejis'hieWs

«yid al.,^t3. PltuiloSdon, S. C . . . . , ,'. va .-. . . i . y \ mm

-.A •■• - . ■."•-■ , '. k \

\

"ffr

.'^* M:'

mbtX TO PRINCIPAL MATTKuif.

'S

, .* »,•

iiii;

MOS

3S

• • • • • Vi

• • ••••••

118

(i

Nx

#

!UT,m.,.OM o, T T» :-In ...p icaMon for, Vendor who In Je.^, to conte.t op.'

t^cm contala. no Btipulation faf. wUficiitVn. iDouglae .pplt.^
Dinning Respdt^ Q.B.) .; -^ ^ jf". «au

to obtain ^ full discharge of the hyi.othigu» on hi. property. (Ei-

,y parte Hart, aqd divers oppo«ant», 8. 0.) 4^

J— vide Oppoairios dfmdecpnterrer..Z ' "*' V

Ri..u.oK o.^..cK:-in;t.^ c,« of; po p.itiiSiing «r;;;;;un«;;;.; V:;,;;;^

,. the.8su.ngofaconfra,„<^,j,rc.,rp,. (Campbell anhl. y». Jeattie,
fiieiipT :--vii« JEyiDENCR.

RBOtBTBATION rT^Plrfe BaIBIEUR DV r<ftfD8.
,:— »tl/e HVPOTHBIJCB ofiN^JIAlB.

.—The 7th clause of tlfo 1 6th Victoria ch. 206 docs not apflj^to r*ntt» via. '
girt$ created by *,|l, a.^d rentes so created do nofcarr/ LojAi^
««« as against holders in good faith, unless the properly be specially ^
. . ^ , ^pothecated by the will, and that for a fixed sum, conformabU to "

n««47n^ «e^«tb clause of the 4th VicTcb io. (Gr^goire vs. Laferriere,^. 0.) 184
R«PBis«p .»8TANCK:-yl„ association Becoming incorporated during pendency of
^ ^ suit may take up uutance. as a corporation. Faribault vs. St. Louis

and^al. afld the Riclielieu Company plaintilTs^r repriie d' initance,

HoAi>;~vi^eTotL-liHwZ:' " ■••- ••-..^.':,..v-.i y M

■Saisi* ARBKT, after judgment :—!;«<. ExcwTioii 1^/,1/oi'inr'

jtJLi ' ' Cannot be rejected or dismissed, on motio%for

" "^l^ '"*8»laritieR connected with H? return intaC^in. (Molson

, ^WUrrougfis.und The Bank of Montreal, T.H.,S.G) '. ^7

<, " after judgment, when decfarert valid an* the T. S. ordered to

^ . ' . pay- tlie plgiiuifr, oi)erales as a transport ford .nd vests the debt

. ^ due by tbe T. S.,in the plaintiff, to the exclusiouof tae creditors of the

defendant, even alffihough be beinsolvent. (Clw|»ui vs. Clarke, Cor.,

and The- lJ«tty Life titsunauce Association. T. a., S. 0.)

R«v«»DiCAT,o.v :-SecnriJr\nitty be put in and mc«p Uvit ginu^'m
Chambers, and" befuire the i^^turn day of the writ, ob- special appiic.^
, • Uonsujiported'byaadavi^. ^^L* ffloci6t6 drOonstrnBtion Ganadienw

*!._,, tJ" ^^n"-^-' 's. L«.oni«gn^s. a).:.,.^..,; .........;...

^Umf!-^UuWirt>, separeede-bitm. ^ -

^' « *of moveables, by authorifcraf jwtioe, reqoires no delivery to paMi^
->^f . VTop^rty: (Bell»v8.EigM7eaal.v4»ndMiInll, '<>K>o8iMit,S. C.)l....'»m
Jmt^ ,-The pr.c«. caanot be *ned for, ;M »«iUe of bwgain and sale for cash -'
^^ but wher* deffvery has not been wwle, >. mm^^ea^e of non payment

Vi

1S»

BBS

'

,>"» ,

ortUe purchase mosey, ^ofdsjn* aenry, S. €ht. . . . . . .

B^niTr:-^K»;«/«S«8rBiiBvftjiDic>>TioM „ .•!•--

• :^-J'«''e Lbttkr OF ouARAiimr,
.StPARATi<MiDRB.B.H8:-*ction for, must be bt««ght in the district in: '^ich the

fiarties have their domi«iie^(KeBiMi4l r* B.Sdard g. € ) . ., .^ -

SHARBnoLDBB:— ft,/*- DAlifAOBS. " ;; " •••••.

SHBBirV^S*tV:-^J'jrf, tBSSOBANDLtftSBB. ' • '^ •,

6HEH.wp?-Ftrff Gaiidikn. . ■ ' • ' : ;.'■'* .'. .4?

may *>«hpr on his own motion or o.i tl.ajof the i.lai^'t^t'*B«'nrf Mt r'-ms
t* a writ of &«-=*« G!«s:«rK, bo i^a to (q&rrect at er^r f^f lii^fM

lei^

SB*'

■4"-

^,»^'

♦ i^.

liT

»»«■#

PRINCIPAL MATTKBB.

,/

;li Ins inadvertence* (H^oiaoQ et ai., Apmuanu,

..<V:^

»♦«»

431

88
1S7

r.••'^

S4

/

omUsion cnimcd tliro\iKli Ilia lna<WertL>ni
fc Htirroiig! J, flcapundpJ^, Q; 1).^
SiiERirr : — VMe OAnDigw.'

SniPiMNO :— Tlio, party Imving op^jp posspssion und control of a vewcl and Qgiiig
ft for liU own b6neHt ami profit, U linblo, und not the rcRiateifcd
owi\er,/oi-.siipi(lie9 fitrni.^hed to It. (Morgan vs-'t-'orsylh et nl., S. O.)

Slavbiiy in L. 0. ;— 'Clmrloate v». Ci^outcau cl M. (American Cn»c) ,.....•

STOPPAQh ill triinsitu: — IX/c CAltnt> R'j

Substitution :— Where a/will in ctfecJ be^tieaths tire usufruct tp A., ditrlng his life-
time onl)'And,the pVpperty to tlic.oldcgt ninlc issue gt A., and in case
' \ A. sliouldidlewitliont lawful malo iaiiip, thei» to Uic son born'in law-

<|Hte»v:t'dli/cl< of l\., &c. &c., llio oldest son of A. living at his doHth
tW lyhtfii tlie logiicy, wUptWer h« had an oldv't l^otlier prndcceased
rjrot. ./entrCartliy ot-nl., AppeUiintu, and HACtj UetiUjohdent, Q. J},)fi
,,f ciiiinot institute an a<."iion en didheunce d'utufruft. (Qau*

: vJ. Hoiidreau etui., S. 0.). ... ..........'.>

.^ecnoissKMKNf. .■v".. ,; '

•Tiol, in relation to toovNbios, only arises when the lessor is i|
■jU'iUcV.pi and makes a Uusuicsii oAlotllhg maveablca,^ anil parties re^
^3^'!iiiiiili(:; in posseSaityn of leaded moveableii, after the cxpiratiort of tliir?
1( a.sj.', will be deemed to be the owners thereof. (Ufell «a. lUgney ct al.^
0 y iino, Ojipt. S. C.) . . .-.-<.'}*. » . . i . . . . . t . >.> w.v •...•,•...;
/Tihrs.Sajsi :— -Decliwuiion of, eunnot bo'contcstcd after the expiration df^iRht day^
, ' fiiiin .the f'yliog therec)f, nnk-ss Vy.f-''I"'P''S' pcrroiasion of the court,

(1 Irnneftu, ApiJeTlant, nn<l Charlebbis, Rpspondentj Q. Uifl.

" :— A C.ishicr or other otltde^ of the.lJiuvJt, rieceiving money, »»tli^ At-

• ' tiirn'-y of another pftrty, ncia'iiiiJividnaHy, and "the BaVik 'M in, no

* wtiy airvcied by the transactipij. .^^nch vs. McLennan etjil., aAd

TJic Blink of Upper Canada, ^,-S:,"^. CO .'.|f .

•* . :— To be admitted to conftesl declaraJion> of, after the expfratioa of eight '
days from the fyling thereof, It is necessary to shew suWicleht cause
'. why the contestation was not fyled ;^iili)n the prescribed delay.

(Lynch v», MtLcnnan et-Tnl.,ji,n^.'fhe iJiink of Upi;»r Canad», T. S). 114'
:— being a foreign InSiiTUnce Cornpany^ maj''b*iegally »erv3^|rith process,
' at its Agency or.Oflice within the juyrsdiction of the Court issuing tjie
same, and be coriJemned on sitv^ii ficrwfb<5 to pay the amount of a
policy, ilwiigb 9ach^^toiicy muy have been efrectcd.ttt another agency ,
beyond the jurisilMtloa of , the Court. (Pbftpniaa vs. Clarke, Cur.

ft,nd the Unity Lifo fn3nr«»nce Asao<;tation, T. 3T, 8. C.) . . » 169

TotL-BRiDOB : — Proprietor of, is bound Iq maintain the roadf leading thereto in
> good repair, and in default is- liaJble for hH coQsequent damages.

(Orenier, Appellant, an 1 Leprolion,, Re»'irt»ndetit> Q". B.) ". . . 29S

ToiBLLS will not b(j sot aside, on the petition of the njo^er of the minors, on tho '
ground tlutt the tutor appointed is nota rijlfttion, if it afipear that '
tho hiotlier, from her habits anrl characlor, I| totiflly hnfit to ba ap-
^ pointed tutrix herself, and that there i$ ni^.oi)jf*ction tji the fitness of

">\ the tutor appointed, and that there baa been nft ir,r^egulii;rity In the -
proceeditig* for his appointment, and thai there are no other if'elatires
of the minors withiiv the iurisdiciion of the Court except tbe Mother.
(Mitchell, Petitioner/ and Browuetal., Uefet|flaBW,8t C.).. ..,.'..., ^%l

lOTOHt— FtV/« SUBiTlrtJTtOtl. J^. ' ' '-

»' a(/A<jr, not of kin or ft relative to the mll«^h%i a right ta«prewnt •

N

ih

se

1

84

M

V. '

V-

».

^J

IVDRX TO PRJNOJPAr, MAtWftB.

/

V«ooR of more muj.zo who ia n«me.i co,«ig„pr iMhe bUl of Ming, h MLerth.les. ■
v,„. .„ y ^ "'" "•'''"' "«•">• (Fowler V9. StirlInK H «V S 0^^ lot

y , i—t iilf tvttv TuiAt,. .i ••••...•...... (>

'''■"T~'^f mI!!':::!!.''?:!'^''*^-'' ,„- ,;^ .n^coUy ^u.^'to (ha::;?i

«r /

«

tf

Wa

■

«

i^

1

'

WlF

«

>

u

ki

,;i;

"i"

. *»cl. purolmscr w..ose pbBse«si«,t ha, been fo^toy totrLrCtcJ
rcftl owner. (Kerr vb. Oiiaeralocve. S CM ' '^*"°y«" '>X |"cli

>:-n^eE..fccT.oVAcsxT. ? ' , V ' ' ' "' -;*;-- ...,.|..v

" :— Anion for rcoorcry<if;4SVi^«riLcdJ,y lnri>.e'of one vonr !/^r7 ^.i

,^ ^ «H. A,.,.eJ.ant.,, ana O^teaey, n^l^J^nC^Z '^' ^ ' ' ^^ .fl«-

:--0a h ot master .aken. in 4o absence:of proof of any cunVoMJo. ' „,' "t^ ^

^'''>r«'<^«rwnKes, .pel payment of arrears, (bo.) .!.'""' " *%,.

.-In 00.0 of pica of prescription, the o.ih of th.]n4n ^aibt i^km^L^ ^

Offered by plea „i„t he owes nothing, (D6.).J. / " -" **''*^W

W.„, .^«r^.e 6j.^, is notiiable for goods, a«id Uted io'l^rWUb^; '^

proof that^he hnsl«,„d Hxpres.ly anthorbed the PurJ^faJ^SS ^

ct irl, vs. Clarke and vir S^^^ C) '" ^'"f^'We, (Benja«lf» ,y .

, creditors, to "-.payment of aV,n/. J,;/^,^^,?^^^^ r

, - ■ ^--'r'f<'o-r,suchrenu„ei.tb4^::^'^^^^^^

v^t.on k the prorisiorts of the 4th Victgri,, Oh. d, CnlaS^ - '^i
• PournierUd fMvet, Opposant, 3. CV.,. ^^"'•''^•*" Tfv ;

Iic^WDoto U. (IJourassa vs. Dedard/S C ) ^ "f »*tftry ei,„t

:— A. party mny legally alienate by/notwitliBtandini^'ttir^ V,!*,'" "."

,. >-metoselUurW..islFl.tiL. ^In^'^lSdrt'^ '"^

. 4 , dee lahng that a farm"«f the testator should be held bvThl'L^t; *

^ ,.of the testator's family in the manner hereinaf«r l^ted td 1'

giving one hklf to \yillinm and hi3 lawful «„!« bli;^. . • *

oae half to ulncan andM.is'lawfJl ^ Lrlfter i» I""' '•?'

. -7^VVU.LorDu„ea„ayi„g.HhoS:S;n;,S;-v:|
tbesharDofhUsodyine to iha iri,r»i»«.. j _'"'"^'«'^wr

unto he. eldel son o„ taking the na«.e of MackintoTh :; t prl
, J ;^;" ""'r "'^"ction, deelaring that th. .Idest so; of iJ^lHal'
, «n<l the^ldest \6n of Dnncad and no other .„uld inherit ihrfor^
> does not mean\ be^uesi of the f«,m to the eldest si S aonS

M^k.„tosh. ^r.^,a.d,.ngwlthouiis,aV*ndD„ncantl^^^^^^^^^^^

ily a dauirhter — sn inn™ „. r» .. ' ? ^

ilt;-

*

-fi''

-"?!!>»«=<«

u
II

AS'

4ft

V

*•;

^-

■, , ■ , • ' o ■""!'""'"'>""*' uuncandBineleavittff

and only a daujjhter-so Ipng as Dunean has 'a dan2
aoma vs. Bonac.na, and Gandlaek, Tut^, 6^„at,S. C.^.^^^

.1^:

'"• *■ .. ^ n'

/ 'v

ZTi

INDEX TO PRINCIPAL MATTKRR,

h

WftiT or ScMHOiit, iikued before the change of dliirlcts in Lower Canada came into

eflfect, Uut iorscd afUr that period, cannot be attacked by tsetfXion \
dielinatoiri. Bemble, it might Iw ■uccettCulljr met bjr an ciceptioa

dlaforini. (Monty v*. Iluitcr, S. O.),-" • .••• '•

*' Decenary to give Juriidicilon in a caie, notwithtlanding that the

defendant may hare appeared and made no objection. (Taylor va. >

" S6n<5o*letBl, S. C), • • • »>

" may bo legaiiy lervcd on the huiband of a wife Uparl* d$ bUnt, tern-
porarily absent .from her home,, but the service must be made by
delivering the writ to such husband or tome other reasonable person
of her family, and a service made, by leaving the writ on the floor of
an open porch of her domicile, (the husband iiaving opened the door
and closed it before tlie baililf coulU state his errand,) is insufficient..
' (The Trust k Loan Company of Upper Canada vs. Mackay t vir,

V-

8. C),

IS4

189

[Reversed in Appeal, 1st. December, I8&0.]
against a municipality cannot be served at the domicile of the Hecre-
tary, Treasurer, although made personally tliero. (School Commit'
•loners of the Municipality of the parish of'St. Pierre de Sorel «.
School Commissioners of the Municipali|y of fte Ifown or borough of

William Henry, 8. C), J. • • • •

served on the "last PresidW^t," on the "late Scc^blary," and on th«
"last Secretary," of a corporate Company, in the nbsuicc of any
known or discov^erable office of such Company, is iriwtfflcieBl. (Booth

TS. the Montreal, and Bylown RnilWny Company, S. C\^.

servedon a party residing in Upper Canada, under the ^8lh section
of the Judicature Act of 1858, on llhe ground that he itat personal or
real properly in Lower Canada, ifannot be maintained when such
properly iS situate in a district other thftp that in which the writ fs
Issued. <Frotlllngbam.ct al. vs. The Brockville and Ottawa Railway

Company, and Diiekinson et al, 0«. S. C.) .^. . .

calling on a party to appear " before' our Jmtices of our Superior^
Court" is sufficient and as available as a summons tp appear before
the Court. (Macfiirlane vs. Bell veau, S. C .),,.. ■,.'• .,...«. 306

106

2sa

yet

^S

rh

■:v

,. :-^Pi- ' N#-^.-,

Tl

J\--^"

'M

■ .gl

^m

^^^^^B^" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^m

>-^..--.^: . ■.. 'j--^

• V ' • '

m

^^L. ^ ^^^^r -';''' '

:■■-:- ■• , #

'\ ■ ; ■

^

' . ■ . *

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -^.■

r ■ . ■ ■ ■ --: ' i

'v:; -•• - ■ , " *

% '

- ^^^^^^^^^^r^;»^ - \ "

■" ■^r" ■■■ ' ■ ■■■ ■ ■

'• '.

-—r-' ""

^^^^^^^■^ -;^4— ^,-

ii.- . ; , • ■■ . ■ ■■. ■ ■^:.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^r

^^^^^V^

. ' * .■ .

■ ■

" ■ -'. ' ' ' •' ■ f

/

'

■'-,.

'■■'.-.- ' ■-■,".■ ....

. . t ' ■ ■

■ t- ■ ■/" '■?»•;./'■: ■'■-"

■ - ' . ' '■ ■ ^ . . ■ •*.

' '/^'-^ 'rt ^^■'^' :/ ^r\'-!:'^".^r:^*-. ',;:.-.■'#'." v^'/ ■■

»•■■ , v f - ---.

■ — , 1 — ■ ■» ■ ' ■ ' .- n ■ — ? ■ ; ; 1 ^^.

■'. ■ ■ ■ ■ r - .. . .' " ;:

: :-'^- .■■■.;■'■;-.•' . ' ;;'/;- .'•■.;. :j. '■

■ f ■ ■■ •■- ■ _:. ■■■■■■ ,-■,'>■■.-.■• • V ^ ■ .^■

,- ■ .. ■■(■■■ ■ 1 *. ■■ . / .. 11 ,1 ■ ■' "■■•.■ "■- ■ '

-._ . - ■ " ---'i -^

; ,

■_,■.,,,,■// ■V:-.:.:," ■.-■•:;::,■..- ■ - ■./-^■/ ■-■■. - '-^A ■ ■■ ■-. .-- ■.